"I'll put it in the shredder," says Colleen Cohen of Vassar.
"I'll put it in the shredder," says Colleen Cohen of Vassar.
Kathleen Brown reports at CNSNews.com:
Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Leven called the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing gay marriage "utterly lawless" and a "bastardization" of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"The idea that the 14th Amendment -- a Civil War amendment -- somehow reaches the personal policy agenda of Anthony Kennedy is an absurdity. It's a bastardization," Levin said on his Friday broadcast.
"A lawless Supreme Court -- utterly lawless, it's absolutely nuts -- doesn't deserve your respect ever again," Levin is quoted as saying, "even if it issues an opinion that you like."
"Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man," said Chris Cuomo, co-host of CNN's New Day, to Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, according to Jeffrey Poor at Breitbart.
In addition, Cuomo stated, "Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith. That’s my faith, but not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise."
Moore replied, "It’s not a matter of faith, sir. It’s a matter of organic law, which states, 'We hold these truths to be held equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
"And the only role of government is stated in the next sentence is to secure those rights for us. The government starts taking those rights away from us, then it’s not securing and it is defiling the whole purpose of government."
Fox News reports:
Until a few days ago, a war memorial in a public park in North Carolina included a metal sculpture depicting a soldier kneeling in prayer before a cross. But city officials voted to remove the sculpture to settle a lawsuit claiming the artwork promoted Christianity.
King, a small city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem, dedicated the memorial about a decade ago. But the statue was removed Tuesday night, immediately after The King city council voted 3-2 to end the lawsuit. Now, an empty hole can be seen where the statue once stood. . . .
As part of the agreement, the King city council also said it would stop flying the Christian flag over the memorial and would pay $500,000 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State for the legal costs the group incurred bringing the lawsuit on behalf of local Afghanistan War veteran Steven Hewett.
Comment: First, nothing in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the the city of King, N.C., from supporting artwork that exclusively promotes Christianity. The 1st Amendment explicitly tells Congress (and thus the federal government) that it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Nor shall Congress prohibit the "free exercise thereof."
The people of King, N.C., are entirely within their constitutional rights to publicly and governmentally affirm their respect for and commitment to historic Christianity.
Second, the entire edifice of the American system of governance rests explicitly upon a real Creator who is the ultimate source of human rights ("unalienable rights"). That foundation is the way of life respected by the Declaration of Independence, which specifically and purposefully states that "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to fulfill this vision, to incarnate it in our politics, governance, and in our civil society. "To secure these rights," the Declaration states, "Governments are instituted among Men."
Those who reject this liberating stance are therefore embracing not liberty but instead non-liberty. And they do so against the defining mainstream of the American experiment, a mainstream rooted in the verifiable Creator who calls his people to live on the basis of truth across the whole of life, including public life and including political life.
Anti-Declaration extremists know full well what the people of King city "are about" and "what this community stands for." Anti-Declaration extremists know it and they despise it, which is why they roam throughout the land seeking to destroy it.
And they no doubt enjoy a pay day of $500,000, as well. What an outrage -- a free people being forced to fund the liquidation of their liberty.
These rejectors, these executioners of freedom in America, are the true extremists in our midst.
Therefore, if you are looking for those who war against human freedom, human dignity, and the American mainstream, be sure to take a good look at radical activists and at radical organizations such as People United for the Separation of Church and State.
What they never could have created in the first place, they now seek to destroy.
But freedom shall not rest. What extremists destroy, lovers of freedom and dignity in community with God and man rise up to rebuild, protect, and defend.
From Rep. Steve King of Iowa:
On January 6, 2015, I will take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God."
Then, I will be asked to put up a vote for John Boehner for Speaker.
I know the pattern of his strategy and actions for the past 12 years to the point where I can predict the results.
I am convinced Congress will not be allowed to restore its Constitutional authority under his Speakership and by refusing to do so, cannot call upon the courts to do so. How then, can I take an oath to the Constitution and put up a vote for John Boehner, almost in the same breath?
"We need a Speaker who will help us all keep our oath, including his own, to the Constitution, not one who has consistently blocked our efforts to keep ours," King states. "I will vote for an alternative candidate for Speaker. I can’t vote for John Boehner again."
Brittany M. Hughes reports at CNSNew.com:
When the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) went after a city council in Jay, Fla., for displaying a nativity set on public property, the atheist group might have won a battle, but seems to have lost the war.
The FFRF, known for protesting any and all religious displays in public places, sent a complaint letter recently to local officials in the 526-person city of Jay, arguing against the life-sized nativity that had been set up on the site every Christmas for nearly 40 years, the group said in a press release.
In a letter sent to the city’s mayor, FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel alleged, "It is unlawful for the town to maintain, erect, or host a holiday display that consists solely of a nativity scene, thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion." He added there are "ample private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely placed."
"In response to the group’s complaints, the city council declared the nativity set surplus property and sold it to the Santa Rosa County Ministerial Association, thus removing it from public property," according to CNSNews.
This move appeared to please FFRF co-president Dan Barker, who "praised the city council’s decision as 'divesting the town of a divisive display'," CNSNews reports.
"But the town has not been deprived of the nativity, reports the American Pastors Network [APN]. In fact, after the ministerial association purchased the nativity, they then placed the huge Christian display on private property near one of the busiest parts of the small town, reports the American Pastors Network," according to CNSNews.
The Nativity scene "now stands at a busy corner at the town’s main stop light -- ironic, say nativity supporters, because many more people will see it there," CNSNews quotes APN as stating in a press release.
"Anyone who actually takes time to study our nation’s history and read the writings of our founders -- not the interpretations of those writings written two hundred years later -- knows that religious liberty and the acknowledgement of Almighty God as the source of that liberty are the bulwark of our nation," CNSNews quotes President Sam Rohrer as saying in the press statement.
"Threats like these against towns that want to display nativities are a blatant attack on our God-given and constitutionally protected freedoms," Rohrer states.
"Groups like FFRF base their arguments on the sound bite of 'separation of church and state,' but again, history proves these arguments wrong, as Thomas Jefferson’s famous 'wall' was in response to the sincere concerns of the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut that religious freedom might be considered a favor granted by government rather than an inalienable right given by God," Rohrer states, according to Hamilton Strategies.
"FFRF would do well to remember that Jefferson himself attended congressionally approved church services held in the U.S. Capitol building itself -- the seat of American government," Rohrer advises.
"The truth remains that public displays of the nativity scene on government property in no way violate the Constitution. FFRF's attempts to stifle religious liberty, however, do."
Penny Starr reports at CNSNews.com:
The Reverend Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors, said the attack on Christian pastors by the openly gay mayor of Houston, who subpoenaed their sermons and other communications after they opposed a city ordinance that allows transgender people to use any public restroom, signals the need for "the next civil rights movement."
Owens, speaking from Houston, told CNSNews.com that he and other pastors in his coalition held a press conference on Tuesday to support the Houston pastors and express their concern about this threat to religious liberty.
"Attacking ministers about what they preach is way over the line,” Owens is quoted as saying.
According to CNSNews, Pastor Owens "thinks the action taken by Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, and the city attorney is a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, and church leaders need to fight back."
In addition, "Owens said the gay rights movement is trying to make expressing one’s Christian views on homosexuality 'hate speech'," CNSNews reports.
"It’s not hate," Owens is quoted as saying. "We don’t hate anyone. It’s expressing our religious beliefs."
Owens also "thinks this new civil rights struggle will require the same investment by churches and church leaders that was made by Martin Luther King Jr. and others who fought to gain equal rights for all Americans regardless of their race," according to CNS.
“Churches need to rise up,” CNS quotes Owens as stating, "adding that all faiths should be concerned about efforts to silent religious speech."
"I may not agree with all religions but I will defend their right to speak," Owens said, according to CNSNews.
For more information on the Coalition of African American Pastors, see this website.
John Nolte writes at Breitbart.com:
During the Bush administration, national Democrat leaders threatened to kill the ABC network's broadcast license if a miniseries unfavorable to the Clinton administration wasn't censored to satisfy Democrats. ABC complied. Earlier this year, Democrats started a push for a Constitutional Amendment to gut (literally) the First Amendment. Over the weekend, Democrats launched a campaign to get -- in their own words -- "Rush Limbaugh off the air."
"The petition to get Limbaugh off the air comes straight from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in the form of a fundraising/petition email," according to Nolte. "The idea is to use the muscle of the petition to in turn muscle Limbaugh's advertisers to drop him. The phony outrage is manifested from a toxic stew of lies crafted by the DCCC and (naturally) Sandra Fluke that take Limbaugh's recent comments about sexual assault way, way, way out of context."
Todd Starnes writes at Fox News:
The injured player was on the ground being tended to by trainers and coaches.
So the Seminole High School football team did what many football teams do. The teenage boys took a knee, bowed their heads and prayed for their injured teammate.
But that simple act of compassion and humanity in Sanford, Florida sparked outrage from the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- a group of perpetually offended atheists from Wisconsin.
An FFRF attorney fired off a letter to the superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools -- accusing them of having an adult lead the prayer for the injured child.
Memo to these tyrannical atheists: Nothing in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits players, coaches, teachers, cheerleaders, principals, janitors, mayors, governors, pastors, moms or dads, presidents or congressmen, etc., etc., from praying for injured football players at any time or in any venue.
The limitation demanded, by force of law, in the 1st Amendment is on the U.S. Congress. The Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishmet of religion, or probiting the free exercise thereof."
So as long as a coach, player, teacher, or pastor, etc., acting as Congress, is not making a federal law that establishes a national state church over the entire United States, well, they can pray to their hearts' and minds' content.
Equally so, as long as the aforementioned are not making a law that prohibits "the free exercise" of religion, well, they again are in the clear.
It's called freedom, under God. Just like the Declaration of Independence talks about (you remember that part about "unalienable rights" given by the Creator, don't you?).
And, of course, the point of ratifying the U.S. Constitution was to establish a body politic that fleshed out the norms and principles of the Declaration.
Freedom under God is an everlasting norm of human freedom and dignity.
Not only is this true, but it happens to foster the creation of societies more humane and more free that what one might find in alternative approaches -- say, in the consistently atheistic USSR, the inhumane Red China of Mao, or in the humanity-hating and Christianity-hating Germany under National Socialism.
We know from logic and the evidence of history where the dictates of the likes of the FFRF lead. Go ahead and huff and puff, dear radicalized atheists.
Meanwhile, we shall stand for freedom, for humanity, which happens to include living in community with God and man. In free America, you get to speak in public. Even to God.
Todd Starnes writes:
The American Humanist Association (AHA) is about to learn a very important lesson -- folks around Gainesville, Georgia, don’t take kindly to out-of-town atheists trying to bully their children.
More than 200 people turned out in defiance of the self-described atheist group early Wednesday morning for an impromptu prayer rally in the middle of the Chestatee High School football field.
The previous day, the atheists (acting on behalf of a single, unnamed citizen) sent a letter to school officials demanding that the football coaching staff stop participating in team prayers and that they remove all biblical references and religious messages from team documents.
"The American Humanist Association said the coaches are using their positions to promote Christianity and they said it appears that such religious activity is not an isolated incident," Starnes writes.
Greg Richter reports at Newsmax:
President Barack Obama is acting like "a bad gambler at Vegas" by doubling down on executive actions less than a week after a stinging Supreme Court defeat, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
A defiant Obama promised to take even more executive actions on Monday because Congress has told him it will not pass any immigration reform laws this year.
"If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill. Solve a problem," Obama said in a Rose Garden press conference.
"Turley, appearing on Fox News Channel's Special Report, called that 'a pretty surprising statement' considering that 'the ink is barely dry' on Thursday's 9-0 decision saying Obama was wrong to have made recess appointments when the Senate had declared itself to be in session," Newsmax reports.
CBS affiliate WJZ TV in Baltimore reports:
Soon, Maryland will be the home to a couple of new landmarks. Actually, sky-marks.
As Mike Schuh reports, two large blimps will soon rise over Harford County and stay put.
Radar blimps like these have been used on the battlefield to track the enemy, and in the Caribbean to intercept drug runners. . . .
What will they be looking for? Anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft and swarming boats.
These blimps are a lot like a toy balloon. They are unmanned and are held in place by a very long tether. . .
With a range from Richmond to Staten Island, privacy experts have concerns.
"That kind of tracking technology raises privacy concerns, and if the military wants to test hardware they should not be testing out on the American public," said David Rocah, ACLU staff attorney.
Aberdeen’s spokesman says that’s not happening.
"There are no cameras aboard the payloads of either of these aerostats. We are not going to be hovering around our neighbors around Aberdeen Proving Grounds, seeing what they are doing in their backyards; no cameras, no spying," [Aberdeen spokesman Kelly] Luster said.
But who is to say cameras and other spy equipment would not be placed onboard these balloons -- and other devices like them -- in the future, especially in a country already bossed about by a federal establishment that has untethered itself from the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, which lay out principial and political grounds for human dignity and respect?
Loss of privacy already abounds in America -- think of NSA wiretaps, IRS prayertaps, Obamacare's invasion into our daily lives, abortion's invasion of the womb to seek and destroy millions of pre-born human beings.
But America is not alone in this. Think of the millions of human beings slaughtered by their own governments, an estimated 262 million in the 20th century.
But whether alone or not, we see that a machinery of oppression already exists in the "land of the free." This the brave question. And the brave who would be free resist.
Let there be no doubt: Sometimes what looks a lot like a toy balloon could be a toy balloon. And sometimes not.
In the face of legal action threatened by attorneys from Liberty Institute, Broward County Public Schools have "capitulated and will allow Bibles into the classroom," reports Ken Klukowski at Breitbart.
"In a letter dated Sunday, May 18, first obtained by Breitbart News, the school system has completely reversed course," Klukowski writes. "The letter tells Liberty Institute Litigation Director Hiram Sasser that the school 'does not ban the Bible' and specifies that students may read it during the same class times when it had been previously barred. The letter also says that the school will comply with Liberty Institute’s demand that all teachers be trained in what the Constitution requires by way of upholding students' First Amendment rights."
"Park Lakes Elementary School teacher Swornia D. Thomas [photo] reportedly reprimanded student Giovanni Rubeo for bringing his Bible to class, according to the Institute," the Washington Times reports. The school teacher "then ordered" Giovanni "to hand the Bible over and 'get his father on the phone,' the nonprofit said," according to the Washington Times.
In this voicemail, elementary school teacher Swornia Thomas says Giovanni "is not permitted to read those books in my classroom."
Erica Ritz reports at The Blaze:
Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in Clark County, Nev., stands at the center of what has become a national controversy over the private use of federal land. He is focused on one big issue, he said in a radio interview with Glenn Beck on Monday: He doesn’t believe the land belongs to the federal government.
"I think this is very clarifying to people," Beck said. "Your stance is, 'I do not recognize these lands to be federal . . . I am staking out my claim that the United States government does not have any jurisdiction, and any rights to the land that [I am] now grazing on'."
"That’s right," Bundy said. "It's Nevada land."
"Bundy said he has 'no contract with the United States government,' and the federal government has 'no jurisdiction or authority' on his grazing rights, water rights, access rights, ranch improvement rights or anything else that 'belongs to "we the people" of Clark County'," the Blaze reports.
"The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state," the Blaze continues. "According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today."
"At the moment of statehood, what happened?" Bundy is quoted as asking. "At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada."
"As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws," Bundy said, according to The Blaze.
Garth Kant writes at WND:
Most Americans probably would be stunned to learn that, in fact, the Capitol was actually turned into a church, once a week, for decades.
A flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and the concept of the separation of church and state?
Not according to the man who coined the phrase.
Or the man who wrote most of the Constitution.
"Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both attended non-denominational Christian worship services inside the very chamber where Congress met from 1807 to 1857, now called Statuary Hall," Kant explains.
"Not only were church services held within the House on Sundays, but, for generations, the Capitol was transformed weekly into the largest church on the East Coast. . . . Under the original understanding of the First Amendment, the government of the United States was not allowed to dictate what a church could or could not do," Kant writes.
"The state would not dictate to the church. But the church would certainly play a role in the state,” WND quotes Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex) as saying. "That's a little different idea" from what "a lot of people have about separation of church and state, including some our esteemed Supreme Court [justices] who are not quite as familiar with our history as they probably should be."
In this regard, members of the Supreme Court, and others, may find it of interest that "President George Washington believed the fate of the new country rested in its citizens’ fidelity to God. That is why he dedicated America to God" in April 1789, Kant writes.
An upcoming occasion scheduled on May 7 and titled "'Washington: A Man of Prayer, 2014' commemorates the events of April 30, 1789, when, after being sworn in at Federal Hall, President Washington, accompanied by Congress, proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel where, as one of his first official acts, the president offered a prayer of dedication to God on America’s behalf," Kant writes.
"Washington: A Man of Prayer, 2014" is "now in its third year" and "is the brainchild of Dan Cummins, pastor of Bridlewood Church in Bullard, Texas," according to Kant.
Rep. Gohmert "noted that [St. Paul's Chapel] is still standing and was the only site at ground zero that was not destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001," Kant writes.
Todd Starnes writes:
The Restore Military Religious Freedom coalition, a group of two dozen like-minded religious liberty organizations, announced Thursday that they are ready to offer assistance to any Air Force Academy cadet who faces repercussions for writing Bible verses on their hallway whiteboards.
The Air Force Academy admitted Wednesday that a cadet leader had to remove a Bible verse he had displayed outside his dorm room because it offended non-Christians and could "cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality."
Read more here.
Why We Revolt: Cheerleaders Violate "Separation of Church and State"?
Federalizing 4-Year-Olds: Human Freedom vs. the Theocracy of Secularism
Extremism In, Extremism Out: Obama’s Soldiers for Secularism
Pentagon Denies Relationship With Anti-Christian Extremist . . . Instantly Complies With His Demands
Amy Payne writes at The Foundry:
It’s getting difficult to take any part of Obamacare seriously.
The Obama administration has altered or delayed it so many times -- who can be sure what the law is at this point?
The individual mandate stating that every American has to purchase government-approved health coverage or pay a fine is supposed to kick in on March 31. That’s the deadline to sign up for coverage, supposedly to avoid this year’s penalty.
But Obamacare is never "settled law," as the president and others have called it, because Health and Human Services (HHS) keeps writing more regulations.
There is no constitutional authority for Health and Human Services. Nor can a people be free to live in community with God and man (see the Declaration of Independence) if unconstitutional bureaucracies entrenched in Washington, D.C. can create "law" ("regulations") by the stroke of a pen.
Every scribble is a whipcord against the flesh of freedom.
This is not law, it is lawlessness. This is not freedom, it is unfreedom. About the only thing "settled" in Washington these days is federal tyranny on the banks of the Potomac.
From Investor's Business Daily:
Attorney General Eric Holder wants his counterparts at the state level to treat the rule of law with the same contempt and selectivity that he and his boss in the White House employ.
'We the people" and "consent of the governed" are important American concepts that Holder and his boss, President Obama, do not understand. They've made it clear by spreading their creeping lawlessness among the attorneys general of the 50 states.
We acknowledge the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, which provides those charged with enforcing our laws in the courts with the authority to decide which particular cases merit pursuing.
However, this power does not extend to deciding which laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the people may be enforced.
Penny Starr reports at CNSNews.com:
A coalition of black pastors announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., that they are launching a campaign to gather one million signatures on a petition calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for violating his oath of office by trying "to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex 'marriage' agenda."
"President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have turned their backs on the values the American people hold dear, values particularly cherished in the black community: values like marriage, which should be strengthened and promoted, rather than weakened and undermined," says a statement by the Coalition of African American Pastors [CAAP] that has been posted online with their impeachment petition.
"Our nation calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture; instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children," CNSNews quotes the coalition as saying.
"In pursuing this intention, the president and his administration are trampling the rule of law. Attorney General Holder in particular has used the influence of his office and role as the chief law enforcement figure in our nation to try to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda," states the coalition, according to CNSNews.
"Millions of voters in 30 states have voted to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but Attorney General Holder is attempting single-handedly to throw those votes away!," CNSNews also reports CAAP as stating.
"For abandoning the oath he swore in taking office and his duty to defend the common good, Attorney General Holder should be impeached by Congress," the coalition argues, according to CNSNews. "CAAP is calling on all men and women of good will to sign the following petition urging Congress to take action against the Attorney General’s lawlessness today!"
In a story titled "New Obama Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections," Byron York writes at the Washington Examiner:
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
. . ."
But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs."
Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment. . . .
Advocates promote the project with Obamaesque rhetoric. "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn in 2012.
Clyburn, daughter of powerful House Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, was appointed to the FCC by President Obama and served as acting chair for part of last year.
The FCC, Clyburn said, "must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation -- be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other." (The FCC decided to test the program with a trial run in Ms. Clyburn's home state, South Carolina.)
Nice try, Ms. Clyburn. But what you "emphatically insist" on is emphatically rejected by the rules of freedom, as set forth in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
It is an extremism set against the mainstream of the ethos of freedom.
It is a path that leaves every American behind, except perhaps those like Ms. Clyburn, who are in the one percent of the one percent who would impose power over all the rest.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects human freedom by telling the federal government to keep its big intrusive, taxpayer-funded nose out of the news business.
A "core value" of freedom is that the federal government stays out of our business. The federal government is a creation of the states, not the Lord of the States. Just who do these people think they are? We literally pay their salaries. They answer to us.
A free people needs a free press to guard against government oppression, which after all, characterizes about 150% of world history.
And then there is the Declaration of Independence, which counsels the total rejection of what Clyburn insists upon.
"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," the Declaration states.
And what, according to the Declaration, is the point of government? "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
What are a people of freedom and dignity, living in community with their Creator, to do when that freedom and dignity is insistently attacked by a federal government?
"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," the Declaration states.
The human spirit rightfully rises up against those who organize against human freedom. Love of neighbor entails the rejection of tyranny over the neighborhood.
The people of South Carolina, and liberty-minded people across the United States, would do well to take whatever legal and moral means necessary to remind federal operatives that the state was created for man, and not man for the state.
With people like Clyburn running loose in Washington, and federal operatives running roughshod across the land, America needs a free, strong, and vibrant press more than ever.
Information is power. News gathering is power. It is too important to be placed in the hands of Washington politicians. This is doubly so when those politicians insist on imposing extreme ideological agendas that war with the rules of freedom and the dignity of the human being.
Let's repeat what is at the core of mainstream America: "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."
It's time to rise and shine, America. Rise and shine.
David Catron writes at American Spectator:
The people we send to Congress have traditionally been very jealous of their power, and there was a time when they would have been considerably less supine in their dealings with such a power-mad president.
The House has impeached two presidents and seriously considered impeaching a third. There may not be enough votes in the Senate to convict Obama, but there are certainly enough Republicans in the House to pass articles of impeachment.
Sadly, there is a precedent for this and where it leads. The Roman Emperor Tiberius once alluded to it with the following remark concerning the self-seeking and moral cowardice that had allowed Rome’s once-powerful Senate to be emasculated: "Those men are fit to be slaves."
If our elected representatives in Congress don’t do something about Obama, they will be regarded by posterity with equal scorn.
Todd Starnes writes:
Stop feeding starving children, or else!
The American Humanist Association [AHA] sent that message to a school in Robbinsdale, Minn., accusing them of violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing students to participate in a community service project at a church that involved preparing meals for impoverished children in Haiti.
The humanists got their britches in a bunch after the family of a student at the School of Engineering and Arts objected to the project being held at Calvary Lutheran Church.
"The school has clearly violated the Establishment Clause,” Starnes quotes AHA attorney Monica Miller as writing in a "threatening letter to the school and district officials."
According to Starnes, the lawyer wrote, "By sending public school children under your authority to a religious environment -- to work with a religious organization that is on a religious mission -- is a violating of the First Amendment principle of church-state separation."
Sorry, but this use of the First Amendment is humanist horse-hockey. Utter propaganda.
Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution forbid schools and churches from working together to help others in the name of Jesus.
Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution forbid even individual states from establishing their own denominational state church, should the good citizens, say, of Minnesota, decide on such a course of action.
What the Constitution forbids is the federal government ("Congress shall make no law . . .") from sticking its intrusive nose into the choices that a free people under God decide to make as they seek to live lovingly and truthfully in community with God and their fellow man, their neighbors, their communities. Even if those neighbors live in communities in places such as Haiti.
What is forbidden is the establishment of a national Christian state denominational church, so that there is not a monopoly of ecclesiastical and governmental power wielded by, say, the Baptists or Anglicans in unity with the political power structure of the day.
That would be too much power consolidated into the hands of too few people. It's the sort of thing that a free-thinking people do well to attend to if they would learn the lessons of history.
What is the point of the Constitution? To set up a form of government that enfleshes and protects the rules of freedom as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
And what is at the heart of human freedom and dignity in the Delcaration? None other than the Creator. Not as a private feeling, but as public truth.
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.
This is not the Creator "religiously" domesticated, as some propagandists seem to envision -- that is, some kind of fairy-tale figure locked away safe and sound inside church walls and prayer closets.
No. This Creator is a public figure. This Creator is pro-verification, pro-evidence, and pro-reason, and this Creator expects human beings created in his image to apply the principles of human freedom and dignity across all of life.
Humanists are trying to impose their propaganda and ahistorical secular superstitions upon the American people. They are trying to consolidate all power under the control of a religiously secular state, with its freedom-denying tentacles choking every aspect of our daily lives.
The result is not enlightenment, but darkness. Not humanness, but inhumanity.
"This is a new low even for humanists," Starnes concludes. "It takes a special kind of godless thuggery to take food out of the mouths of starving children."
And should be changed. In an article titled "Common Core Assignment," Joe Newby writes at Examiner.com:
A mother in the Bryant School District in Arkansas
-- a district using the controversial Common Core curriculum -- was surprised to learn her sixth-grade daughter was given a team assignment to revise the Bill of Rights, pruning two amendments from the Constitution while adding two others, Twitchy reported Monday, citing a report at the Digital Journal.
The assignment made the assumption that the United States government has determined that the Bill of Rights "is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer."
Bruce Thornton writes at Frontpagemag.com:
A few days ago CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, speaking about the Republican House bill defunding Obamacare, commented, "Certainly not the way the Founding Fathers maybe drew this thing up."
It’s certainly a surprise to hear an anchor on CNN, an organization biased in favor of progressives, appealing to the authority of the Constitution. For a century the progressives have been telling us that the Constitution is an outmoded document from a different age, and needs to be "modernized" to meet the challenges of a new world. . . .
Ms. Baldwin vs. Knowledge vs. U.S. Constitution: "If we probe Baldwin’s appeal to constitutional authority to buttress her attack on the House bill, then, we can see that she knows little or nothing about why the Founders 'drew this thing up' the way they did," Thornton writes.
"The key issue is Article 1.7.1.: 'All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.' We need to understand the reasons why the Framers gave the House this responsibility."
Founders' Distrust of Brooke Baldwin: "We should remember that the Founders’ distrust of human nature extended also to elites that monopolized power, as well as to the masses." Thornton explains. "Hence 'elites' in the government had to be 'checked and balanced' as much as the masses.
Thornton points out that "against those continuing to argue for giving the Senate the power of the purse, George Mason countered, 'An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. ––The purse strings should never be put into its hands.' As a compromise to placate the smaller states, the Senate was given the power to add amendments to the money bills originating in the House."
And That's a Wrap: "Contrary to Baldwin, then, the House bill to defund Obamacare is consistent with the intent of the Founders," Thornton concludes. "The law is unpopular, with 52% of the people opposing it. Its exceptions and exemptions doled out to political favorites are unjust, its constitutional violations blatant, and its incompetent construction, confused rollout, and unforeseen future costs dangerous for the public fisc and our exploding debt. If ever there was a 'grievance' needing 'redress,' Obamacare is it."
Which do we reasonably fear more? A runaway federal government on a path to destroy our liberty? Or a convention of the states given the clear and enforceable mandate to correct the abuses of power by the federal government?
Many knowledgeable conservative scholars have made the unimpeachable case that the checks and balances contained in Article V will prevent any mischief. For heaven’s sake, 38 states are required to ratify a new amendment. If we can’t get 13 states to stop something crazy, we are wasting our time trying to save the republic.
Day by day and year by year, Washington, D.C., is deliberately and persistently increasing its power. Washington, D.C., will never fix itself. The framers gave the states the power to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government should it abuse the original document.
That abuse is more than apparent to any reasonable American. A convention of states under Article V is our only realistic hope of saving our liberty. I fear Washington, D.C., far more than I fear the Founders, the states and Article V.
Cathy Burke reports at Newsmax:
President Obama is moving "perilously close" to impeachment, Sen. Tom Coburn told a town hall crowd this week, two reports said Thursday. . . .
Coburn repeatedly called the president's administration "lawless," telling the crowd of 300 at the Muskogee Convention Center there should be a national constitutional convention to counter it -- and to cut down an oversized federal government, the Tulsa World reported.
"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," he said. "I have a great fear now of not having one."
Liz Klimas writes at The Blaze:
Many municipalities set up checkpoints for law enforcement to cut down on drunk driving over the Fourth of July holiday, but one stop in particular is getting national attention.
The now viral video posted to YouTube showing a man getting stopped at a DUI checkpoint in Rutherford County, Tennessee, has more than 2.8 million views as of Monday morning after being posted the night of the event.
The video includes what the driver believes to be a unconstitutional search of his car where an officer is even recorded saying the man is "perfectly innocent and he knows his rights."
"The Tennessean reported Rutherford County Sheriff’s public information officer Lisa Marchesoni saying the incident is being reviewed 'to determine if there are any policy or procedure violations'," according to the Blaze.
Ken Klukowski reports at Breitbart.com:
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense. . . . Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis."
"The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith," Breitbart reports.
On Nov. 23, 2012, I wrote on Twitter, "You do realize that 'Christian' Obama is in the process of criminalizing Christianity."
I then illustrated this on Facebook with reference to Obamacare, writing also on Nov. 23, 2012:
Obamacare requires the funding of pro-abortion provisions.
Obamamare will fine people who embrace science (the human biology of the fetus), ethics (it's wrong to kill the innocent), the Constitution (there is no basis for the federal gov't to impose its "healthcare" upon the states and the people).
The verifiable data we have vis-a-vis the Christian worldview embraces science, protects the innocent, and favors freedom.
This worldview, as such, cannot therefore be reduced to activities inside prayer closets or to singing 18 verses of "Just as I am."
Community with God and man is intended to be lived out across the whole of life. [emphasis added]
We now already have massive demonization from Obama, the Democrats, and the formerly mainstream Democrat media.
The purpose of demonization is to destroy -- reputations at first; much more later, if necessary.
Fines for not complying with Obamacare will be in force.
What do you think will happen if companies and individuals or companies refuse to pay fines?
Well, stiffer fines. Court. Jail. Possibly more.
This is one of the paths to the criminalization of Christianity currently underway.
Jesus of Nazareth commissioned his followers to take the Good News regarding God's answer to the problem of human brokenness into all parts of the world: "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15-16).
In view of this statement from the Pentagon, we now have the Department of Defense of "Christian" Barack Obama repudiating Christ, repudiating the explicit, normative, publicly actionable, and verifiable teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
Memo to Obama: The scope of Christ's commission to share with our fellow human beings the Good News from the Creator (who is the basis of unalienable rights), regarding the real-world solution to the brokenness of the human condition, includes all of life, including military life, even at the Pentagon.
Obama is a mere creature. Neither he nor his servants has the authority to countermand this commission from Christ himself. The extremism of Barack Obama against God, humanity, and freedom becomes more evident with each passing day. A free-thinking people, and a freedom-thinking people, revolts.
The following press announcement was released today by Liberty Counsel:
Washington, D.C. -- Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented regarding the oral arguments made today before the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry on Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as one man and one woman.
"No one can predict how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the Prop 8 case, but based on oral arguments today, it is possible a majority of Justices could rule that the proponents of Prop 8 lack standing and dismiss the case.
"If that happens, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would be dismissed, leaving perhaps only the Northern District of California court ruling. This would mean the ruling applies only to the northern part of California.
"It is possible the Court could even dismiss the district court ruling and save the issue of marriage for another case. Of course, there is always the possibility the Court could issue a limited ruling or a broad ruling on the matter.
"If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way and rules that there is somehow a 'constitutional right to same-sex marriage,' it will become, in my view, an illegitimate arbiter of the rule of law. It will have lost its legitimacy in its entirety, and will have just simply morphed into a political machine.
"Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage," said Staver.
"The natural family is fundamental to our very existence. Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens. Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman,” Staver concluded.
Liberty Counsel submitted an amicus brief on this case to the Supreme Court and has defended many marriage laws in California since 2004.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
So writes Paul Joseph Watson in a column titled, "Most Americans See Government as 'Threat to Rights' For First Time," published at Infowars.
Brennan Takes Oath on Draft Constitution -- Without Bill of Rights
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
West Point Warns . . . About "Civil Activism, Individual Freedoms, and Self-Gov't"!
Swearing to uphold a draft of the Constitution that does not include the Bill of Rights "is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted," notes Olivier Knox at Yahoo! News.
Blogger "Emptywheel" writes that Brennan "was swearing on [a draft] that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments -- or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on."
Hat Tip: Drudge
David Limbaugh writes in his latest column;
The Republicans had better not squander the good will Sen. Rand Paul purchased for them in his filibuster over the Obama administration’s potential use of armed drones to kill non-enemy combatants in America.
I am not simply referring to the constitutional issue of whether the president can engage in such acts, though that’s very important. I believe the significance of Paul’s filibuster transcends the drone issue.
"It was about challenging the administration’s lawlessness and accountability across the board and his runaway spending and statism," Limbaugh writes. "It was about championing freedom, God-given rights, and the Constitution."
That's Piers Morgan's complaint. And he should not receive death threats.
And it's a death threat not on the one, but on the many.
Wake up, Mr. Morgan. Wake up.
Hat Tip: Drudge
Gun Control Fallacy
Terence P. Jeffrey reports at CNSNews.com:
The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.
The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.
To support its argument, the Obama administration cites "a 'policy statement' by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be 'superior' to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households," reports CNSNews.
Comment: Once again, the extremism of Mr. Obama and his radical regime expresses itself. In this case he discriminates against the Creator and the the Creator's norms for the healthy human family.
This discrimination will be baited and sold as "fairness" and "equality," but it is utterly unfair and an equality of cruelty. For it expresses hatred against what is best for children who are created to survive and thrive in real marriages and not in counterfeit "families" of two moms or three dads, depending upon the latest "scientific" social construct created on demand in the basement of the White House.
Rather than subject children to state-imposed homosexualist intolerance against the human family -- created to express the diversity of male and female within the liberating unity of married life -- these know-nothing radicals would deny that children are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Needless to say, nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution legitimizes or authorizes Mr. Obama and his authoritarian disciples to seek to impose, by judicial fiat, their private value systems and belief constructs upon real children who need real families.
This kind of radicalism against the mainstream of the rules of freedom and the human community as centered on the Creator and not the state -- nor on the feelings of the Democrat Party -- ought to be rejected out of hand and exposed for extremism for which it stands. Children need moms, not tyrants. Make love, not hate.
Adoption Institute Report Written by Pro-Homosexual Advocate
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"
Michael F. Haverluck reports at OneNewsNow:
Alleging that a portrait of Jesus . . . that has been hanging inside the entrance of an Ohio middle school for more than 65 years is unconstitutional, the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Jackson City School District for its permanent removal.
The ACLU of Ohio, along with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, claim that the so-called "separation of church and state" precludes Jackson Middle School from hanging the painting, but School Superintendent Phil Howard disagrees.
"We're not violating the law and the picture is legal because it has historical significance," Howard is quoted as announcing at a school board meeting in January.
The "so-called 'separation of church and state'" is correct. Thomas Jefferson "undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," says Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, according to OneNewsNow.
"The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the 'wall of separation'," says Staver.
Terry Jeffrey, editor in chief of CNSNews.com and formerly editor of Human Events, writes:
Karl Rove -- "The Architect," as President George W. Bush called him -- crafted Bush's two presidential campaigns and served as a key player in Bush's White House.
Now, with an assist from the New York Times, Rove is presenting himself as a conservative leader. On Sunday, the Times reported that American Crossroads, the super PAC Rove started, was beginning a new program called "The Conservative Victory Project."
This project, as the Times put it, will "recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and tea party enthusiasts."
But Rove is no conservative.
He is also "deeply concerned about the rapid erosion of personal liberty and our president's cavalier attitude toward the Constitution and consolidation of power into a monolithic central, federal government, a bureaucratic nightmare that makes and enforces the rules, controlling even the administration of health care and the curriculum our children will study in school."
In contrast to the current White House occupant, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approach respects the mainstream American -- and human -- rules of freedom (cf., Declaration of Independence, U.S. Bill of Rights).
Obama: "Executive Action" on Gun Control "Within My Authority as President"
Caddell: "This Country Is on the Verge of Explosion"
U.S. Marine Schools CNN: "Unconstitutional Laws Are Not Laws"
Why the 2nd Amendment? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
In an article titled, "Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional," Stephen Dinan reports at the Washington Times:
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess. [emphasis added]
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
"If some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands," the Times quotes the judges as writing.
The alert comes in a document "issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.," reports Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times.
Title of the study: "Challengers From the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right."
The center -- part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers -- posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers "far right."
According to Scarborough, the report "says anti-federalists 'espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.'"
In addition, the report "draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent 'far right,' and describes liberals as 'future oriented' and conservatives as living in the past."
"If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero," says a GOP "congressional staffer who served in the military," according to Scarborough.
Tyranny Watch: Obama's Militarization of the Homefront
Marine Corps Law Enforcement Battalions to "Control Civil Disturbances"
FYI, Free-Thinkers: 1st Counterfeit "Marriage" at West Point Chapel
Caroline May reports at The Daily Caller:
Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," said Stockman.
Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr., reports at CNSNews.com:
A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.
The group, named Citadel, intends to purchase 2,000 to 3,000 acres for the project in western Idaho.
The community will comprise of 3,500 to 7,000 families of patriotic Americans who "voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of Rightful Liberty."
Caddell: "This Country Is on the Verge of Explosion"
U.S. Marine Schools CNN: "Unconstitutional Laws Are Not Laws"
Why the 2nd Amendment? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
The White House speaks on secession: The Founding Fathers "did not provide a right to walk away" from the federal government.
Prof. Walter E. Williams examines the secession issue and states: "There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861."
Here is the full text of the 2nd 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.
Joseph Story was professor of law at Harvard University and served as a Supreme Court Justice for thirty-five years.
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. . . .
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
John Hayward writes at Human Events:
The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, delivered a State of the State address on Wednesday that ran for over an hour, and ended with a hysterical, podium-pounding rant about gun control.
At one point he promised he wasn’t interested in “taking away people’s guns,” but then he launched into some very energetic demands to do exactly that.
The governor may want to avail himself of "The Right to Shoot Tyrants, Not Deer," by Andrew Napolitano.
Joe Schoffstall writes:
Pushing back against calls for greater gun control from some members in Congress, conservative groups have now launched a Chick-fil-A style "Gun Appreciation Day" set to take place on January 19, 2013. . . .
"The national 'Gun Appreciation Day,' which is being launched by a coalition of conservative and gun rights groups, will take place a day before California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to introduce legislation for an assault weapon ban," according to [U.S. News and World Report].
Madeleine Morgenstern reports at The Blaze:
Cpl. Joshua Boston, the U.S. Marine whose scathing open letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) over proposed new gun control legislation went viral, again vowed not to abide by any new law requiring him to register his firearms.
“Whatever happens happens. I have a right granted to me by the Second Amendment in our bill of rights and it says ‘shall not be infringed,’” Boston said Saturday on CNN. “Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.” (emphasis added)
Make sure you watch the video clip included in Morgenstern's report, where the Marine explains why, even if, as the CNN anchor states, "The law is the law if it becomes law, and you're just willing to break it."
The Marine has a point: The authority of the federal government rests upon its sworn fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, which was devised to protect the rules of liberty set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
A federal official, such as Dianne Feinstein, is not authorized to pass laws that violate the U.S. Constitution, including the right to bear arms, a right that recognizes the need to protect a free people against the danger of a monopoly of governmental power in the hands of the few, as is the case in Washington, D.C., today.
Unconstitutional "laws" are acts of tyranny, even if passed by people wearing suit and ties. Such "laws" may be "legal" in the sense of an imposed dictate from an extremist power structure in Washington, but they lack legal Constitutional authority.
Unconstitutional government is outlaw government and goes to the heart of why the Founders insisted on the Second Amendment.
Tyranny prefers an opposition unable to defend itself. "In government we trust" is a death wish.
Dear Sen. Dianne Feinstein: You might read this news report to see an example of why someone -- say, a mother and her children -- might need a 30-round magazine.
Apparently, the intruder didn't get a "Safe Map."
"My wife is a hero," said the victim's husband, Donnie Herman. Amen and amen.
Hat tip: Cameron Gray
Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman to Megyn Kelly on Fox:
"Actually, Megyn, I think that’s one of the biggest problems with the document,” he replied. “Of all the constitutions in the world, the American Constitution is the most difficult to amend."
If you seek anti-freedom extremism decked out in a suit and tie, this is it.
Here's more on suit-and-tie tyranny, courtesy of the civil Obama administration.
Terence P. Jeffrey writes at CNSNews:
In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment -- which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion -- nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings.
"Americans can sit by and watch government ignore the Constitution and all the principles that made the country great. Or they can take action, like they did in 2010," Joseph Farah writes.
"Americans can get out into the streets and let the government know, in no uncertain terms, they will not accept the imposition of Obamacare, they will not accept the endless spiraling debt, they will not accept unlimited government, they will not accept intrusions into our personal liberties, they will not accept rogue government doing what it pleases, when it pleases and to whom it pleases.
"In fact," says Farah, "it might be time to resort to civil disobedience in defense of the Constitution."
CBN News reports:
The owners of Hobby Lobby say they must remain true to their faith, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block the Obamacare contraception mandate. . . .
"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," attorney Kyle Duncan said in a statement posted on Hobby Lobby's website.
"To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs," he said.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to impose anti-life insurance regulations upon any state, person, or business. Or to threaten Hobby Lobby with fines of more than $1 million a day for refusing to submit to Obama's state-imposed religion of secularism.
Not only is this action imperialistic and immoral, it's not even Washington's job. We the People hire them to protect life and liberty, not to kill life and liberty. What's the matter with you, Washington?
Nothing could be further from the mainstream U.S. position on the freedom and dignity of the individual -- see the Declaration of Independence -- than that a central power structure would violate its constitutional oath of office to force a company to enable the killing of the unborn.
Obamacare is, therefore, extreme and uncivil. It is inhumane and degrading. It is anti-life, anti-science, and anti-freedom.
Susan Jones reports at CNSNews:
Americans value their children, their safety, and the right to pursue their dreams without fear -- and those "common values" trump the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last Friday in a speech at a Washington, D.C., elementary school.
In the name of "the children" (don't tell the aborted millions), "safety" (and who could possibly be more safe than defenseless children in a "gun-free zone"?), and the pursuit of "dreams" (controlled and directed by the Federal Department of Happiness, funded by monies pilfered from workers by governmental theft, aka, "social justice" and "redistribution"), Obama and Co. prepare the human battlefield for open and direct assault on the rules of freedom.
The counter-freedom hippie revolution of the sixties has produced hip extremists today who wear suits and ties and run the show in Washington, D.C.
Perhaps the matter they and their collaborationist media least want Americans to realize is they are the targets of a massive, well-funded, well-orchestrated transgenerational campaign of propaganda and community organizing against the rules of freedom and human dignity as set forth in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution, rooted in a real Creator who gives real unalienable rights.
You may not be interested in government and politics, but government and politics are interested in you. And in your money. And in your children. This may be why they show up in schools and make a really civil case for dispensing with a free society.
Plus, you get an Obamaphone. Batteries included. What could possibly go wrong?
That Americans might smell the wolf terrifies Capitol Hill and media extremists. Hence the daily doses of appropriately massaged "news" to discourage the reawakening of a populace with the backbone, means, and comprehension to put the federal government back in its cage and establishment radicals out of business.
Suit and tie tyranny decked out in pseduo-compassion may fool the civility police, but it is not cool. It hurts, too. Women, children, and minorities suffer the most.
Emily Miller writes at the Washington Times:
The tragic murders Friday at the Sandy Hook Elementary School break the heart of every American, and that includes gun owners. Those of us who belong to the 47 percent of families who have a gun in the home for self-defense are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, aunts and uncles who think of our own little ones as we mourn the terrible scenes from Newtown, Conn.
It is human nature to want to find someone or something to blame for a tragedy like this. Parents want to find a way to prevent it from happening to their own children. The horror of a man so deranged that he could shoot a small child is almost impossible to understand or to accept. However, those who use this tragedy to call for more gun-control laws are misguided.
"The Sandy Hook school was a gun-free zone, meaning Mr. Lanza knew that no one could shoot back when he entered the school or the classroom," Miller writes. "The shooting in July in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. was also in a gun-free zone."
Miller recommends: "Rather than engaging in yet another debate about the Second Amendment, perhaps we should be discussing whether security is enhanced or weakened by not allowing a school to be armed for self-defense."
This quote is from Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, one of four Republican congressmen stripped of key committee positions, according to the "Inside Story of Boehner's Conservative Purge," reported by WND.
It is suggested that this purge is merely the enactment of party discipline.
However, by punishing these conservatives, GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner may be demonstrating the political equivalent of slitting his own throat. And that of the Republican Party.
A political party increasingly alienated from the rules of freedom, as set forth in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution, either rejects the leadership of hypocritical elites or it dies with them.
It is true: A house divided cannot stand. This is true of political parties and of national communities.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and there is no reason to expect that freedom in the U.S will fall in a day. But Rome did fall, and so the U.S. and freedom in the U.S. equally can fall.
The Democrat Party already wars aggressively against the rules of freedom. Thus its extremism is exposed when measured against the liberating mainstream of America freedom and dignity.
It would be a dying shame to see the GOP go down into that same pit. "We the People" need not follow.
Columnist Erik Rush writes:
I find it both ironic and sad when I see blacks come out for gun control measures, particularly since the earliest gun-control legislation in America was aimed expressly at compromising blacks’ rights under the Second Amendment.
Historian, author and Second Amendment expert Clayton E. Cramer contends that the historical record provides ample proof that there has always been an undercurrent of racism behind gun control legislation, and that at one time, gun-control laws were an openly stated and understood device for keeping the black population in check.
"Liberal blacks who defend gun control on the basis of violent crime in the inner cities are also off base in overlooking that these urban areas have been under the complete political control of liberals for decades," Rush notes.
A little more critical distance vis-a-vis the real-world results of the liberal status quo may be in order. As Rush explains:
It is the destructive social policies of the left that have precipitated the dysfunction that leads to violence in the black community.
Indoctrinated blacks, of course, do not see the method behind the madness and thus eagerly embrace the simpleton’s impossible fix: Erase guns from the equation.
Like so many other Americans, blacks also accept at face value politicians' feigned concern for our safety.
"The bottom line," Rush argues, "is that Americans need to wake up to the fact that . . . all gun-control measures are efforts on the part of the political left to disarm Americans. As governments have known for millennia, unarmed populations are infinitely easier to control than armed ones. This effort will continue to move 'Forward,' particularly since Barack Obama was re-elected."
What is the point of the Second Amendment? Rush explains:
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America was intended to facilitate citizens’ protection from a tyrannical government should the occasion ever arise.
In layman’s terms, this means militarily engaging the operatives of a criminal regime -- with guns.
"The current administration is bristling with radical Marxists," Rush concludes, "and I would wager that 80 percent of Americans aren’t even capable of conceptualizing the lengths to which they are prepared to go to manifest their decades-long dream of a Marxist America."
Update: TSA internal report blames 17-year-old girl's "'loose-fitting' dress."
Just remember, boys and girls, a government that gives you condoms (after unconstitutional pilfering from workers via oppressive taxation) is the same government that can expose your breasts. And that's just for starters.
From emails to abortions to TSA exposing breasts, extremists in America have opened the door to a radical lack of privacy and a radical, inhumane submission to the masters of the federal plantation. Uppity slaves need not apply.
Moms, Dads . . . are you just going to sit around and let this happen? Or are you going to get in the face of tyranny and not back down until justice and peace, consistent with the rules of freedom, have finally won the day?
Let us work and pray for a massive uncontainable peaceful revolutionary movement that removes tyranny from this land and restores freedom to the home of the brave.
Sex Therapists Want to Legalize "Virtual" Child Porn
HHS: "Children Are Sexual Beings -- Even Infants"
Humane Worldveiw vs. Kiddie Pole Dancing
Rolled Model: Tennis Pro Harkleroad "Proud of My Body"
Eddie Scarry writes at The Blaze:
Ken Mehlman, former RNC chairman and 2004 campaign manager for George W. Bush, makes the conservative case for gay marriage in today’s Wall Street Journal.
"Some misperceive the issue of marriage equality as exclusively progressive," Mehlman writes. "Yet what could be more conservative than support for more freedom and less government? And what freedom is more basic than the right to marry the person you love? Smaller, less intrusive government surely includes an individual deciding whom to marry. Allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples will cultivate community stability, encourage fidelity and commitment, and foster family values. . . ."
Utter nonsense, of course. But wrapped in the typical liberalist marketing language selling the "sizzle" of "freedom," "equality," and "love," while in fact camouflaging a product loaded with hate, discrimination, and intolerance.
That would be hatred for the rules of freedom (rooted in the Creator who gives both unalienable rights and liberating norms for married love and human sexuality).
That would be discrimination against the wonder of the male-female diversity, oppressing vive la différence with a steamroller of mono-dimensional sameness and flatness (Oh, yeah, "equality").
And that would be intolerance against people who think for themselves and prefer real marriage, real family, and real diversity to pseudo-intellectual counterfeits all gussied up for the county fair in liberaland hickville (imposed by government extremists from Washington).
Arguing there is a "conservative case for 'gay' marriage" is as sound as arguing there is a conservative case for counterfeit money. You can make it, but only fools bank on it.
Finally, a word to the GOP: A house-divided cannot stand. The choice is yours -- the rules of freedom vs. the rules for radicals. Choose freedom and you will live. Choose the extreme radicalism of Mehlman and company and you will not live. Remain a house-divided and you will collapse.
The antithesis is real. Say yes to reality. And throw the well-baited counterfeits of hate, discrimination, and intolerance onto the ash heap of history.
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Black Pastors: Banning Chick-Fil-A From Cities Is "Same Thing" as Banning Blacks From Restaurants
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"
What I Saw at Chick-Fil-A Today
Tony Lee writes at Breibart:
On Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to officially let her know Texas would not partner with the federal government in setting up health exchanges under Obamacare.
Perry had indicated he would not set up a state healthcare exchange, especially as he eyes another gubernatorial run in 2014 and potentially a presidential run in 2016. He made it official a day before Friday's deadline. Sebelius has since extended the deadline to December 14.
As self-governining entities under the Constitution, the individuals states should reject any form of interchange with Washington, D.C., that violates the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Washington-centrism violates the rules of freedom and seeks to enslave a people of freedom.
Zachary Snider reports at The Daily Caller:
Nine members of the Wisconsin state legislature say they plan to back a bill to arrest federal officials who try to implement Obamacare.
The state’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker must decide by Friday whether the state will draft a health care exchange plan under Obamacare or surrender the task to the federal government.
“Just because Obama was re-elected does not mean he's above the Constitution,” Republican state representative Chris Kapenga told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Drew Zahn reports at WND:
On Nov. 6, Americans voted to return Barack Obama to the White House; then on Nov. 7, some folks in Louisiana petitioned the White House to peaceably withdraw their state from the Union. . . .
According to the White House website, the petition was created by Michael E. (full last name not provided) of Slidell, La., the day after the election and has since been electronically signed by a few hundred people, most -- but not all -- of whom hail from the Pelican State.
“We petition the Obama administration to: Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government,” the petition reads.
There is a certain symmetry in this. After all, as the record shows, Obama and the Democrats have already seceded from the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.
Todd Beamon reports at Newsmax:
Radio show host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that left-wing media outlets are pushing for President Barack Obama to postpone next week’s election because of Hurricane Sandy -- something he says Obama has no authority to do.
“The president has no power whatsoever to do this,” Limbaugh said on his radio program. “The president cannot do it. The fact that so many people want the president to is alarming, because it indicates how many people would be comfortabe with that kind of autocratic, totalitarian power.”
Limbaugh cited articles published on such websites as Politico, Slate, and The Atlantic -- as well as questions posed by reporters on Tuesday to White House spokesman Jay Carney as indications that left-wing organizations are pushing for a delayed Election Day.
But note: "In light of this historic storm, and potential unrest, should Obama temporarily suspend the elections to ensure that all [is] in order & the crisis averted?" I asked on Facebook on Monday. If one understands the secular liberal worldview, you can often predict what its true believers and fellow travelers will think and do.
One friend responded, "I do not believe he has a Constitutional power to do so . . . . of course that has never stopped him before."
To which I suggested the following leftist Obamaesque line of argument:
In order to protect the Constitution, which I took an oath to protect and uphold (and nobody takes that oath more seriously than I do) elections have to be suspended until they can be fairly and equitably conducted, at the earliest possible time after the Sandy crisis has been dealt with. In fact, an independent Blue Ribbon Elections commission has found . . .
"When the founders wrote the Constitution, they had no idea that a storm of this magnitude would impact upon the East coast this close to national elections," I later continued.
"[Surely,] it is in the spirit in which they wrote to allow for fairness and equality, lest voters [devastated] by this 'act of God' are unfairly discriminated against, just because they employed common sense, played by the rules, and tried to avoid the hurricane. It would only be a temporary suspension of elections."
The record indicates that Obama and the Democrats and the formerly mainstream media have little use for the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.
Thus they ably represent a history of this world that is replete with examples of opportunists ready to use crises, manufactured or otherwise, to eclipse freedom and impose authoritarian control.
Mind you, if I had concluded that the rules of freedom needed to be replaced by the rules for radicals (based on a merely naturalistic concept of equality, gender, race, class warfare, and so on -- anything but a real Creator who is the origin of unalienable rights), I would be moving in a direction similar to Obama and his media bodyguards.
But their philosophy is unsound intellectually and lacks the needed resources to sustain human freedom, human dignity, and a humane, civil society.
Does any of the above mean elections will be suspended tomorrow or in the near future? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the suspension of elections is thinkable and on the table.
It also means that the mobilization of radical presuppositions requires the demobilization of freedom -- a suspension of freedom that is already underway in a land of czars, industry takeovers, the rejection of unalienable rights, and so on.
The radical understands that the appearance of constitutionality must be maintained as long as is possible, lest the masses awaken and resist enslavement. The grooming process can be a decades-long affair.
The more obvious suspensions of freedoms (to vote, to speak, to assemble, to live, etc.) will always be for the common good ("fairness," "equality," autobahns). And temporary.
Or as Mr. Obama has said: "No sudden moves."
Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews.com:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear Planned Parenthood's complaint about a Texas law that bars their participation in the state’s Medicaid program on Thursday, allowing Texas to withhold state funds from the abortion provider.
Planned Parenthood argued unsuccessfully that the law violates Medicaid patients’ constitutional rights.
The “ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women’s Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion,” said Governor Rick Perry celebrating the decision.
“In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.”
Bravo, Texas! You are on the right side of science, ethics, and reality-oriented language, not to mention the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.
And bravo, Texas! For standing up to Planned Parenthood, which is neo-fascist and immoral and extremist in its bloody profitable practice of imposing torture and death upon innocent human life.
And shame on you, Planned Parenthood. Keep your reproductive fascism off the bodies of the "least of these." And quit trying to steal funds entrusted into our stewardship by the Creator so that you can selfishly profit in death.
Fred Lucas reports at CNSNews.com:
Actor Richard Schiff, who won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of the dreary White House communications director “Toby Ziegler” character on the hit show “The West Wing,” said that his rights come from a document written by men.
CNSNews.com asked Schiff, “Given the whole party platform dust up, would you agree with the Declaration of Independence that all rights are God-given?”
Schiff didn’t object, saying, “If you believe in God, sure you can say that.”
“I think man wrote that. I think it was a group of men who sit down and wrote it,” Schiff, who was attending the Democratic National Convention, told CNSNews.com.
If they decided that God gave them the right to write it -- you see how confusing this is? If you believe in God and you believe God gave you that right, good for you, man. Keep on believing that.
The piece of paper gave me the right because it says it and it made it law. This is a country of laws. And if you want to believe in God, and abide by those laws, fantastic.
Jim Kane writes at Gather.com:
Transportation Security Administration screeners are now being deployed to political events and were spotted patting down senior citizens at a Paul Ryan speech in Florida.
There's more at The Shark Tank, which notes: "We heard that the TSA was going to expand its ummm, ‘reach,’ but to assist in political campaigns is quite the jump in broadening their ‘transportation security horizons'."
Infowars.com provides context:
As we have previously documented, airport security style checkpoints and inspection procedures are already in place at bus terminals, train stations, and are rapidly being expanded to the streets of America.
Agents have even been spotted roaming around at public events such as sports games and music concerts, and even at high school proms.
The TSA even moved beyond its own borders this summer as agents were dispatched to airports in London for the Olympic Games.
Kane reminds us that "during the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama stated, 'We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful' as the United States military. Perhaps the airport screeners are the civilian army he was talking about."
Kane concludes: "It's awful that Americans are becoming so inured to being patted down by creepy TSA screeners. The agency is becoming omnipresent in society. Isn't the Secret Service enough to protect candidates at political rallies?"
As for the Secret Service -- yes, it probably is enough to protect candidates. But what if the purpose of the TSA and similar arms of the federal government is broader? It's an honest question.
Omaba & Co. (which could include any among the Washington-centric establishment, including Republicans) may have calculated that a civilian army is needed to protect the federal government -- from the people.
Especially from those who expect presidents, congressmen, senators, and federal bureaucrats to uphold their oath to respect and protect the Constitution of the United States.
It's an honest consideration. And why we have the 2nd Amendment.
The Founding generation knew about the dangers of overweening control. The Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Madisons understood: The bigger the government, the smaller the people.
They understood the need to safeguard responsible authority so that it does not transmogrify into oppression, which has been the unfortunate norm throughout human history.
So when a 70- or 80-year-old grandmother is frisked by a "civilian army," freedom cries out. Her family, her community, her country come to the rescue.
It's the humane thing, the freedom thing, and the Creator-endowed "unalienable right" thing to do.
Let's hope the TSA isn't there to get in the way.
"A former Marine involuntarily detained for psychiatric evaluation for posting strident anti-government messages on Facebook has received an outpouring of support from people who say authorities are trampling on his First Amendment rights," AP reports.
According to AP:
Brandon J. Raub, 26, has been in custody since FBI, Secret Service agents and police in Virginia's Chesterfield County questioned him Thursday evening about what they said were ominous posts talking about a coming revolution. In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
Police -- acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional -- took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime.
The Rutherford Institute has "dispatched one of its attorneys to the hospital to represent Raub at a hearing Monday," says AP. "A judge ordered Raub detained for another month, Rutherford executive director John Whitehead said."
"For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon," Whitehead said.
Author Matthew May in American Thinker argues that "no American president has demonstrated such contempt for the Constitution, the concept of separation of powers, and the American spirit in as small amount of time as Obama. His transgressions and insults are legion."
May's point: "A vote for incumbent president Barack Obama in November is a vote against the United States Constitution. Furthermore, it is a vote for one's own enslavement."
As Jeffrey Lord writes at American Spectator, the "rainbow" rage exhibited by homosexualist extremists at Chick-Fil-A expresses a recognizable mindset that values not freedom and tolerance but instead control and shutting down dissent:
Leftist intolerance for dissent and opposition is as old as the blood soaked guillotines of the French Revolution. Not to mention the Revolution's 20th century descendants from Communists to the Nazis (aka the National Socialists) to their more modern American cousins like all those progressives who hid for decades behind the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan or a few decades later appeared as Bill Ayers and his bomb-setting brethren in the Weathermen.
Most recently these people were on the prowl in the Sandra Fluke dust-up, haughtily demanding that Rush Limbaugh be silenced by removing him from the airwaves. And at various times with various affect they have targeted Lou Dobbs during his CNN tenure, Glenn Beck at Fox, and Pat Buchanan at MSNBC. Not to mention the big push from the early Obama White House itself to try and shutdown Fox News with repeated attacks.
We haven't even touched here on those little gems of fascism on various college campi known as "speech codes."
"For those unfamiliar with the basic tenets of the Left," Lord continues, "there has now been provided in the Obama-era a four-year crash course in how leftism really works in early 21st century in America."
True enough, the "guillotine may be physically departed to the historical mists, but the televised images of an SEIU thug beating up an opponent of Obamacare capture the same mindset at work.
"Lenin may still lie embalmed in Moscow, but his spirit and that of the Russian Revolution haunts the riots launched by the Occupy Wall Street crowd."
In addition, "even the tamer example of the Obama administration deciding that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was something they didn't like -- and thus refused to enforce the law -- displays the Left's historic contempt for such a trifle as the Constitution."
And let us not forget the "full-fledged attack on religious liberty that is the administration attempt to force the Catholic Church to violate its fundamental beliefs to appease HHS bureaucrats."
A Logan Square neighborhood pastor used the controversy over a proposal to build a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Chicago as part of his sermon Sunday, asking those opposed to the new franchise to reverse course.
As WBBM Newsradio’s John Waelti reports, the Rev. Charles Lyons of the Armitage Baptist Church, 2451 N. Kedzie Blvd. was animated as he read a letter to his diverse congregation that he intends to send to Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
"Their money, their business, their taxes are not wanted? Not needed?" he said.
As to Mayor Rahm Emanuel's comments that "Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values," Lyons said, "This could easily be seen as anti-religious, agenda-driven bullying."
According to the CBS affiliate, "Lyons calls Chick-Fil-A a poster child for practicing respect for its employees and customers, and spoke of the day when what he calls the 'thought police' would come to his own church."
Says Lyons: "We will meet them at the door, respectfully, unflinchingly holding a copy of the sacred Scriptures in one hand and a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the other."
This is from a press statement released today by the Alliance Defending Freedom:
A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court. The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business. The mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.
“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”
Charl van Wyk argues: "Those who do not support the individuals’ right and responsibility to self-defense . . . are neglecting the theology of the Bible."
Paul Joseph Watson writes at Infowars:
President Barack Obama has caved to pressure from his supporters and finally exploited last week’s Aurora massacre to begin the push for gun control, erroneously claiming during a speech last night that the second amendment is about hunting and target practice.
“We recognise the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage,” said Obama during remarks made at a National Urban League Conference in New Orleans.
"In reality," Watson counters, "the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights not to ensure Americans could enjoy hunting or target practice, but as a protection against government tyranny."
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) said that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion that Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional under the taxing power of Congress is “completely and utterly wrong” and the “weakest of all the arguments that were made” in trying to defend the mandate.
Richard Rahn writes at the Washington Times:
The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to tax Americans at the federal level. Yet Congress continues to give away this most fundamental responsibility to international organizations, the most dangerous of which is the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Most Americans probably would not approve of their tax dollars being used to support an international organization that undermines their fundamental liberties and promotes giving their hard-earned money to other governments, often run by corrupt or dictatorial regimes. This is precisely what the OECD is doing, with the blessing of the majority members of Congress.
The robeless one would be high court chief justice John Roberts, about whom Daniel Flynn writes at Frontpage.com:
The chief justice may have changed his mind. The Constitution didn’t change its meaning.
Citizens should obey the law. They shouldn’t obey the lawyers.
If John Roberts is free to disagree with John Roberts about whether the individual mandate constitutes a tax, then Americans are certainly free to disagree with John Roberts, too.
Herman Cain at WND:
I was as disappointed as anyone else by the Obamacare ruling, and I remain deeply troubled by Chief Justice Roberts’ assertion that the federal government has the power to do virtually anything, so long as it calls it a tax.
But this is the hand we’ve been dealt, and the question now is how well can we play it? When you get over the punch in the gut and the feeling of betrayal, you should recognize that it’s a hand we could play all the way to a pretty big win.
Joseph Curl writes at the Washington Times:
The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation -- the president’s top job is to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it -- aloud, in front of witnesses.
In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . ."
Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.
Ben Johnson reports at LifeSiteNews:
The city council of Burlington, Vermont, has passed a new ordinance that could have the effect of banning pro-life protesters from exercising their right to protest in front of the town’s Planned Parenthood facility.
In a major development in his probe of Barack Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 presidential ballot, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has dispatched his lead Cold Case Posse investigator and a deputy detective to Hawaii.
The mission to Obama’s purported birthplace comes as the Hawaii Department of Health continues to resist efforts by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to verify that the Honolulu agency has a valid birth certificate on file for Obama.
Patrick B. Crane reports at LifeSiteNews:
A pro-life law firm is promising a “legal war” if the Internal Revenue Service heeds a complaint filed two weeks ago against Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria. The complaint came after the bishop said that President Obama’s attack on religious freedom through the contraceptive mandate indicates he “seems intent on following a similar path” as past totalitarian dictators such as Hitler and Stalin.
“The Internal Revenue Service has no legal right to investigate, let alone threaten or penalize, the Catholic Diocese of Peoria for illegal ‘electioneering’ after Bishop Daniel Jenky, C.S.C. referred to policies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin while delivering a robust, wholly legitimate critique of current federal efforts to quash and curtail religious liberties,” says Tom Brejcha, President of the Thomas More Society, a public interest Chicago-based law firm.
LifeSiteNews also reports that "Brejcha, whose law firm has successfully faced down the IRS twice recently on behalf of pro-life groups, is promising free legal counsel to any religious leader who is threatened for speaking out by the government or interest groups."
In a column at Human Events, Newt Gingrich states:
As the Second Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isn’t given to us by the government, and it isn’t just an American right.
It is a human right.
As a fundamental component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is intimately tied to those universal truths expressed in our Declaration of Independence -- that all men have rights to life and liberty, with which they are endowed by their Creator.
And they have not just a right but a duty to throw off despotic government.
Ken Klukowski writes at Big Government:
On Day Two, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that Obamacare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
With those words, the individual mandate -- the centerpiece of Obamacare -- is likely doomed.
Jeff Poor writes at The Daily Caller:
On his Monday show, radio talk show host Mark Levin, author of Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, said “what would happen if we were living in a functioning constitutional republic is articles of impeachment would be drawn up against the secretary of [Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius]” over a slew of charges, most recently the contraception mandate for Catholic institutions.
William L. Gensert writes at American Thinker:
In America, no man is born a king or a tyrant. Just as a man must learn to be a killer, men must teach themselves to be tyrants. Barack Obama has learned how to be a tyrant.
The proclivity was always there, along with the arrogance and narcissism. When you are better than everyone else, it is a small step to wish to reign over them as well.
Yet, few expected a University of Chicago lecturer on constitutional law to decide the Constitution did not apply to him, only to mere mortals like us. After all, when speaking of George Bush in 2007, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.
"I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," said Barack Obama in defense of his usurpation of our Constitution, which established three coequal branches of government, sharing power, designed to impede the machinations of a transformational tyrant refusing to take "no" for an answer, or a power-drunk Congress, or an out of control judiciary.
Billy Hallowell writes at The Blaze:
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a teenage atheist whose fight for the removal of a prayer mural in her public high school in Cranston, Rhode Island, has attracted national attention.
Jessica Ahlquist, 16, who was represented by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, was elated on Wednesday when her lawsuit against Crayton city and officials at Cranston High School West came to a close. In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux said that the school must remove the banner immediately. Additionally, he decided that legal fees should be provided to the plaintiff. . . .
Ahlquist‘s main argument in the case has been that a prayer mural present in her school’s auditorium is offensive to non-Christians. Additionally, she claims that it has made her feel ostracized and, thus, she has petitioned fervently for its removal.
This federal judge and young lady might be suprised to know that the U.S. Declaration of Independence explicitly roots the American vision for freedom in the Creator. That would be God.
I would say that would be "religion," but "religion" then included the concept that information from the Creator was actionable out in the public arena. Today, "religion" has been reduced to a private belief system that a person may or may not "value."
This new dumbed-down, anti-Biblical concept of "faith" has nothing to do with the content of the verifiable information we have given in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and it is quite at odds with the founding of the United States.
Note also that atheism gives no basis for human freedom (out of nothing comes nothing, including the nothingness of no freedom), and atheism as a worldview has nowhere been shown to produce the liberties that are the intellectual and practical results of building a political system upon verifiable information from a knowable, rational, and free Creator.
It is these facts that federal judges and 16-year-olds are obligated to respect -- if what they want is to remain within the mainstream of the American experiment, and if their desire is freedom, not tyranny.
Here is the operating motto of the Obama White House: "So let it be written, so let it be done!"
Like Yul Brynner's Pharaoh Ramses character in Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments, the demander in chief stands with arms akimbo issuing daily edicts to his constitution-subverting minions with an imperious wave of his hand.
His entourage of insatiable usurpers never rests.
"In July 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to create a 'civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded' as the U.S. military," writes Joseph Farah of WND.
Farah then discusses "two recent developments" that suggest Obama was far from kidding.
Steve McCann writes at American Thinker:
The mask is fully off. Barack Obama is the most corrupt, power-mad president in this nation's illustrious history.
By his actions in bypassing Congress and making appointments that should be subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session and innumerable extra-constitutional actions since he became president, he is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said Wednesday she is not concerned that she has been lagging behind in national polls since she was considered a top Republican contender in the spring and her upcoming 99-county tour of Iowa will show caucus voters in her home state that she is the only “true constitutional conservative” in the presidential race.
Judge Andrew Napolitano writes:
Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate's dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.
How can this be? "Last week, while our minds were on family and turkey and football, the Senate Armed Services Committee . . . drafted an amendment to a bill appropriating money for the Pentagon," Napolitano writes.
"The amendment would permit the president to use the military for law enforcement purposes in the United States," the judge explains, "a radical departure from any use to which the military has been put in the memory of any Americans now living."
What's the upshot? Well, asks Napolitano, "Can you imagine an America in which you could lose all liberty -- from the presumption of innocence to the right to counsel to fairness from the government to a jury trial -- simply because the president says you are dangerous?"
This could never happen in the United States of America, right?
Think again. Or better it, think along with the Founders, says Napolitano:
Nothing terrified or animated the founders more than that. The founders, who wrote the Constitution, had just won a war against a king who had less power than this legislation will give to the president. But to protect their freedoms, they wrote in the Constitution the now iconic guarantee of due process. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note, the founders used the word "person."
"If this legislation becomes law," Napolitano concludes, "it will be dangerous for anyone to be right when the government is wrong. It will be dangerous for all of us. Just consider what any president could get away with. Who would he make disappear first? Might it be his political opponents? Might it be you?"
"To suggest that a nation 'conceived in liberty' can tolerate a handful of Washington bureaucrats telling several hundred million citizens what health insurance is and forcing them to buy it is beyond absurd."
Radio talk show host and author of Liberty and Tyrany Mark Levin "warned attendees at AFP’s Defending The Dream conference Saturday that Americans now live in “a Post-Constitutional government” heading into tyranny," writes Craig Bannister at CNSNew.com.
Todd Stames reports at FoxNews.com:
An Alabama school district has been accused of allowing prayers that invoke the name of Jesus during high school football games, according to a complaint filed by a national atheist organization.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation said the Lauderdale County school district has violated the First Amendment by allowing the prayers at Brooks High School.
These atheists clearly have an open and shut case. For as everybody knows, the 1st Amendment states that prayers should not be allowed before high school football games and that Congress shall pass all manner of laws that prohibit the free expression of Christianity anywhere outside one's craninum, unless one is safely enclosed in a prayer closet or perhaps church building.
Yes, indeed, the Founders, who hated God and Christianity, had enough sense to limit cults to backwaters and secret places and were sufficienly wise in tolerance to know where to draw the line, lest a new Inquisition break out and the god of almighty government equality be overthrown, resulting in chaos, regression, and less freedom for Joe to marry Johnnie, and for Michelle to kill baby Alonso, if progress or the pursuit of happiness so require.
Thus the joy of life, personal peace, and affluence in Obamaville and Rinoland.
It's not whether he is a conservative, but whether he is a Constitutionalist.
If you are a Constitutionalist -- that is, you embrace a form of government designed to protect the ideals of the Declaration of Independecnce -- then you stand for freedom.
If not, you stand against freedom. I see little evidence that the likes of a Rove is a Constitutionalist. If not a Constitutionalist, that would mean Rove and those like him are enablers of unfreedom.
I'm willing to be corrected, but that's how I see it at this point.
In response to recent questions regarding whether GOP candidate for president Herman Cain is merely personally pro-life and would therefore fall in line with the "pro-choice" but really pro-abortion position, in contradiction to science, ethics, and the mainstream of American exceptionalism (see the Declaration and Constitution), the following statement has been released by Herman Cain:
Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.
Note Cain's emphasis on the Constitution. Let us hope and work to ensure that Cain's approach to the question of life expresses in particular his approach to governance in general.
That is, that, if elected, a President Herman Cain would do everything "consistent with his constitutional role," to advance not just the culture of life (which of course would be a huge advance over abortofascism) but also to do everything "consistent with his constitutional role" to advance a culture of freedom.
Earlier today I read an article by Tom Tancredo in WorldNetDaily, and it was titled, "Herman Cain Is the Real Deal."
How do we know, according to Tancredo, that Cain is the real deal? Because Cain possesses what Tancredo calls the threee "Cs" -- character, competence, and commitment.
Sounds good, right? But this is not enough. Far from it.
Here is my reply, which I have posted on Facebook as well:
May I suggest a 4th "C"? The Constitution.
Would Cain's "character," "competence," and "commitment" be directed toward Constitutional governance -- or just open a new door for "conservative" Un-Constitutional governance?
We had that with the Bushes and RINOs, and that helped pave the way for the conceptually anti-American Obama and the modern Democrat Party.
If Cain is pro-Constitution, let him NOW, in INTERVIEWS, and DURING FUTURE DEBATES set forth his views in ways that clearly express a high view of constitutional and Declarational governance.
A "problem-solver" is not enough, not by a longshot, IF THE AIM IS FREEDOM.
What is needed is a CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVER who appreciates the principial connection between the Constitution and the Declaration -- where the center of gravity for human freedom and unalienable rights is not the state but the Creator.
That Herman Cain is framing his opposition to abortion in terms constitutional is an advance of freedom over barbarism.
Now let the man who would replace Obama and Obamaism do so on the basis of an full-orbed vision-for-freedom, which is precisely what is given in the Constitution and Declaration.
The Daily Caller reports:
Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”
Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” -- without the approval of Congress -- to tackle unemployment.
“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
Do you affirm the Constitution (as written), the Declaration (as written), and will you restore constitutional norms to federal governance, including refusing to sign any legislation that cannot be directly supported chapter and verse by the plain and literal meaning of the Constitution, and by disestablishing and defunding every form and agency and program of unconstitutional federal governance, so that the American republic and her citizens can once again live in freedom and dignity based upon unalienable rights from the Creator and not from the state?
And now, the follow-up question: If you cannot affirm the above, how can you in any sense, with any integrity, swear an oath, without mental reservation, to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?
However, a healthy, vibrant, constitutionally strong America would never, ever have elected the likes of a Barack Obama. And we wouldn't put up with a herd of RINOs, either.
Hence, the Tea Party, townhalls, and "angry mobs" re-educating themselves and their nation on what it means to live free under God (see the Declaration) in a world replete with self-serving game-playing elitists who excel in swamplands like Washington, D.C.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, here is President Obama on America as a "great, great country that has gotten a little soft."
Bob Unruh reports at WND:
Just the name Internal Revenue Service can strike fear in the hearts of consumers, business owners, and business operations volunteers for churches alike.
But this weekend, pastors have the opportunity to thumb their noses at the federal agency -- and have the weight of one of the largest Christian and human rights defense teams at their backs.
It's the weekend for the Alliance Defense Fund's annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, on Oct. 2.
That's the Sunday each year when pastors are encouraged to "present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates" to "exercise their constitutionally protected right to free religious expression."
Robert Knight writes at the Washington Times:
The Constitution of the United States, whose adoption we celebrate every Sept. 17, clearly lists the powers of each branch of the national government. Let’s take a look at what Barack Obama, like any president, is empowered to do and see if it squares with his actions.
In Article II, Section 1, he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section 2 names the president as commander in chief of the armed forces, grants him the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate and to appoint ambassadors, federal judges, Cabinet officials and other federal officers.
Section 3 says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
In his two years and nine months in office, President Obama has compiled a spectacular record of noncompliance with the Constitution. . . .
Peter Tucci writes at The Daily Caller:
Given the amount of attention the Constitution has been getting in conservative circles lately, it’s a safe bet that it will be on many Republican voters’ minds when they cast their ballots in next year’s GOP primaries.
Which is why I thought it would be interesting to see what the Republican presidential candidates’ campaign websites have to say about the Constitution.
Surprisingly, in many cases the answer is: nothing.
At issue is Obama's life documents, not just his birth certificate, says Carol A. Taber at American Thinker. Not to mention the Constitution and the betrayal of the American republic.
Robert Spencer writes at Human Events:
Enraged over the burning of a Koran in Florida, Muslims have murdered about 20 people in Afghanistan and five in Pakistan -- none of whom ever burned a Koran or had any acquaintance with the men who did.
These killers are monstrous. They have assassinated innocent people for something that they couldn't conceivably have had anything to do with. And yet instead of calling them monstrous and demanding that Islamic leaders stop inciting and approving of such behavior, Western government and media elites are blaming not the murderers and rioters, but the man behind the Koran-burning.
Joe Kovacs reports at WorldNetDaily:
Is potential Republican candidate Donald Trump eligible to run for U.S. president?
He's concerned about creeping Shariah, as should be any American president who takes seriously his oath of office to "protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution.
At a pro-Planned Parenthood rally last Tuesday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said: "Tea Party Republicans . . . don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give them to them anyway."
Note to Lautenberg: The freedoms in the Constitution are not gifts of senators or of Democrats or of fascist organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, whose ongoing legacy of blood is one of greed and violence against "the least of these."
As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, Herr Lautenberg, these freedoms derive from the Creator, not the State, and it is on this basis that every single human being is respected as having been "created equal" and possessing "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Herr Lautenberg, sir, you are a menace. You, Herr Senator, are the way of holocaust.
Shame! You betray a profound and dehumanizing hatred against the American ideal. We Americans, however, under God, shall overcome such hatred, indignity, and vain philosophy. Death to fascism!
In a must-read article, J. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action writes at American Thinker:
Few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator."
Writing at the Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuhner responds to Obama's decision to ignore attacks upon the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act:
Contrary to the claims of liberals, marriage is not a “civil right” -- something to be dispensed at the behest of anyone who wishes it. If this were true, it would unleash the floodgates. Polygamy, “transgender” unions, bestiality, pedophilia -- all forms of deviant sexual behavior could claim discrimination. It is a recipe for moral anarchy and social disintegration. For centuries, public acceptance of homosexuality has been identified with decadence, decline and the fall of civilizations.
Throughout history, especially in the West, traditional marriage has had a distinct status. It is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Its primary -- although not sole -- role is to create and socialize children. It is the most effective means by which societies not only reproduce, but transmit the mores of one generation to the next. It is the linchpin of any stable, successful culture. To weaken -- or worse, transform -- it inevitably leads to societal collapse. Babylon, ancient Greece and Rome all withered away because of internal moral rot.
If Obama is successful in his campaign to discriminate against the Creator of the Declaration, and against the Creator's norms for human sexuality and married life, he may well go down in history as the president who delivered the final gleeful blow in the murdering of America.
But he will not succeed. He will fail, justice will be done, and America as a nation conceived in liberty, under God, will live. Those who pledge sacred honor never give up.
"Four California firefighters forced to participate in a 'gay' pride parade in July 2007 are victorious after the California Supreme Court this week refused to hear the city’s petition to review an appellate court decision last year," reports LifeSiteNew.com.
"The four men, led by Fire Capt. John Ghiotto of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, filed the suit against the city of San Diego for sexual harassment a month after a battalion chief directly ordered them to ride a fire engine in a lewd parade through the city streets. The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd," says LifeSiteNews.
Bravo to these firefighters for standing against a statist agenda that contradicts America's God-given and Creator-based unalienable rights, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence.
The Creator who gives these rights also provides liberating and healthy norms for family life, marriage, and human sexuality, all of which are under aggressive assault by homosexual extremists at war with the defining and enduring American -- and human -- mainstream.
Free-thinking people look forward to the day when an American president and the homosexual axis cease and desist from discriminating against those who, like the Founders of this exceptional nation, respect the emancipatory norms for human society available to any seeking individual and to any society willing to take verifiable information from the Creator with the seriousness -- and joy -- that it deserves.
The information in this stunning audio may be one reason Obama's State of the Union speech last night was so flat.
Here's the opening visual statement as the audio begins:
Neil Abercrombie admitted to close friend and reporter Mike Evans -- There are no records of Obama's birth in Hawaii.
"Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities," reports WorldNetDaily.
In a column titled "Preserving States' Rights and the Constitution," Bruce Walker at American Thinker writes:
It is a grim fact of history that strong central governments have gone hand in hand with horror.
Nazis, very quickly, essentially ended the system of strong state governments in Germany.
The Soviet Union was also ruled with an iron hand from Moscow, and the destruction of whole peoples followed its central policies.
The closer people are to the elected officials governing them, the more freedom flourishes. The more remote the government, the less citizens feel like equals and the more they seem like cattle.
That is why the Founding Fathers considered states' rights as absolutely indispensable to the purposes of our nation.
"74 percent of officeholders failed the exam," reports WorldNetDaily.
Question: How can lawmakers possibly legislate for freedom if they don't know, and thereby follow, the rules of freedom?
"There is a struggle underway for the hearts and minds of the tea-party movement, conservatism and the Republican Party," Joseph Farah writes at WorldNetDaily. "So-called 'economic conservatives' are doing everything in their power to limit the scope of the movement to take back America to fiscal issues in the narrowest definition of that term."
Farah warns that "economic conservatives" are promoting an agenda "that is fundamentally flawed and wimpy compared to the vision of our founders, who understood we do not live in a world defined exclusively by materialism."
Farah argues that "you simply can't have a self-governing society without an operational consensus on right and wrong. All issues are moral" -- whether they concern "economics, border control, health care, marriage, or abortion."
What is Farah's solution? "There has never been a successful liberty movement in the history of the world built on materialism or an exclusively economic agenda. It's like building the foundation of a house on sand.
"Our founders knew better. They provided the foundation. It's still solid today. We don't have to build a new one. We can find it in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."
"The alarm continues to be a raised over a private internal memo from the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service that indicates President Obama has an amnesty plan in the works for many illegal immigrants," reports OneNewsNow.
"The memo was drafted by four officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to the director of the department, Alejandro N. Mayorkas," the report continues.
"Jan LaRue, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), believes the memo serves as evidence the Obama Administration intends to go around Congress in its attempt to acquire amnesty for illegal immigrants."
"Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens," writes David Limbaugh.
"We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona."
In December 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and sent the USS Arizona to the bottom. In July 2010, the Imperial Forces of Barack Obama attacked the State of Arizona and sent the U.S. Constitution to the bottom. Will it stay there, or rise to victory over this anti-American attack from within?
"In her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan said she is a political Progressive and was dismissive of the Declaration of Independence, relying solely on the Constitution for legal decisions. That's a consistent position," writes Jack Curtis at American Thinker.
What's going on? "Progressives don't like what the Declaration declares," Curtis rightly concludes.
Clearly, to dismiss or otherwise drive a wedge between the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Declaration is grounds for disqualifying Kagan from serving as justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
For there is no way she can rightly understand what is at stake in the Constitution if she ignores or rejects the defining and enduring philosophical rationale and basis for the Constitution, as set forth in the Declaration.
For more on how this so-called "progressive" political philosophy is an extremist and disqualifying position outside of the enduring and liberating American mainstream, please see "Grounds to Reject Elena Kagan Nomination to the Supreme Court."
Kagan and Co. may market themselves as "progressives," but they are actually "regressives," for they are attacking the foundations of freedom, not just for Americans, but for human beings around the world and throughout history.
To turn back such a radical and foundational assault upon the body politic, what is needed is an equally foundational counter-response, but one which has the added value of being true.
This is the biggest danger that the New Resistance (the Tea Party movement, etc.) poses to regressive "progressives" such as Kagan and Obama and their axis of allies in politics, the academy, in Hollywood, and in the formerly mainstream media.
"The route taken by the State of Arizona, enactment of Senate Bil 1070, is far less severe than it could have been if the route taken had been war, as granted to the states by the U.S. Constitution," writes former assistant district attorney James Carender at American Thinker.
"Article 1, Section 10, Cl. 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that '[n]o state shall, without consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay'."