Resist DC: A Step-by-Step Plan for Freedom

Hello 92251 List Members,

It does not seem that we get too many state reps that I have had much use for.  I could get to like this one.  He puts it out plain and simple.  I like it!

Veritas Vos Liberabit,

Gill Rapoza

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Resist DC: A Step-by-Step Plan for Freedom

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

29. Nov, 2009

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/29/resist-dc-a-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.

The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.

County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

Ø      Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [example legislation]

Ø      Nullification of National Cap and Trade [example legislation]

Ø      Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]

Ø      Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [example legislation]

If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2: Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

Ø      Sheriff First [model legislation]

Ø      Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [sample legislation]

Ø      Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]

Ø      Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [model legislation]

The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7  Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

---

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

NOTES:

1. Kentucky Resolution of 1798, Thomas Jefferson, Adopted by Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798.

2. Federalist No. 85, Publius (Alexander Hamilton), August 13 and 16, 1788.

3. Rules of the House XIII 3(d), “Content of Reports,” Page 623, 110th Congress.

4. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (Actual Pages 11, 13) (2008)

5. Id at (Actual Page 11).

6. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/ancient/1859-teutoburg-forest-the-battle-that-saved-the-west

7. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sheriff&searchmode=none

8. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

9. Federalist No. 39, Publius (James Madison), January 16, 1788

10. Tempering the Commerce Power, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 95 (2007).

If you enjoyed this post:

Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Obama’s Birth or America’s Rebirth?

Obama’s Birth or America’s Rebirth?

by Timothy Baldwin

Posted on 29 November 2009

http://libertydefenseleague.com/liberty/2009/11/29/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-or-america%E2%80%99s-rebirth/

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.

The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.

Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.

Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.

Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?

In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.

Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!

You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?

Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!

The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.

Copyright © Liberty Defense League

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Battle Rifle Basics

Hello All,

This is just one of those FYI articles.  I don’t personally have any of the weapons mentioned below, but they all sound good to me. 

And I guess I need to add my usual disclaimer for this kind of article.  I have no inside scoop as to any absolute reason you need the weapons mentioned below, but there is always the idea that it is nice to be prepared.  And I never recommend starting any battle of your own if you can help it. 

The AR-15 stuff in the article is not legal where I live for most of us, so I don’t plan that on my list of weapons I would like to eventually own.  (But then again, I have friends and/or relatives in Oregon, Florida, and Texas, where it is all good, if I ever move to one of those spots.) 

I still have this crazy idea that I would like a Marlin 45-70 Guide Gun one of these days, legal even in California.  Not an expensive weapon to purchase, but certainly not cheap to shoot.  However, I understand it can put a nice hole in an engine block, if one is so inclined.  I should expect this is the sort of weapon that you would want to do your own reloading. 

Be careful out there,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Battle Rifle Basics

by Michael Gaddy

November 30, 2009

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy74.1.html

While anyone with an elementary knowledge of firearms recognizes the advantages of a handgun for concealed and close quarters defense use, the time where a battle rifle could be used for self-defense is rapidly approaching. The size and weight of a handgun provides many advantages but these factors also become a liability if one is forced to defend themselves at a distance of more than a few yards. While there exist handguns used for hunting and target shooting, those are not usually carried or used for self-defense and their effective range is still limited, especially when compared to a battle rifle.

Everyone, with the possible exception of those who still believe answers to our financial woes can be found within the democrat or republican paradigm, know that eventually those economic issues will lead to chaos in this country. When that happens, some 40 million plus who have been told by politicians that they are “entitled” to the property of others will use whatever means available to forcibly take that which they want. The logical scenario will see these folks banding together, most likely in roving bands. They will use numbers and force to steal what others who have seen this coming have set aside for themselves and their loved ones. This criminal activity very possibly could happen with the blessing of the government, for those who are stockpiling food, water, guns and ammunition are already being demonized. The Lever Act of 1917 gave government control over food and fuel storage amounts; it can and will happen again.

Using the events that occurred after Hurricane Katrina as a template, one can see that those who were armed were able to secure themselves and their property on several occasions by simply displaying a firearm when confronted by these roving bands of criminals. Of course after this happened the government moved to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens. Simply stated, the criminals in government moved to protect their brotherhood among the street gangs and criminal element by disarming law-abiding citizens. This explains in vivid detail why the government continually seeks to disarm the public: it is easier to steal from and enslave those who are unarmed. Considering the police in New Orleans became thieves themselves continues to blur the distinction between government employees and thieves.

Several factors should go into the selection of a battle rifle; there are many platforms and calibers available and strong consideration should be given to the environment in which one believes they will operate when events lead to chaos in this country. What is the maximum range one can actually see and determine if a possible target is a threat? Is one’s environment urban or rural? Is there a chance the environment could be fluid due to attempts to move about in both environs? What is the experience level with rifles and engaging targets at distance?

Bolt-action rifles are more inherently accurate at long-range than semi-autos, especially in the larger calibers. Semi-auto rifles offer greater firepower and magazine capacity as a rule. Lever action rifles are accurate and shoot well at short to medium range, (200 yards max) mainly due to caliber selection. If one were to determine the maximum range at which they believe they would encounter someone bent on mayhem at 300 yards or less, lever guns and smaller calibers could suffice. Consideration should also be given into the amount of time a person is willing or able to devote to practice. To master a battle rifle at distances over 400 yards requires a great deal of time, effort, and projectiles down range. I have been shooting long-range battle rifles for over 50 years and certainly do not consider myself a master.

For the great majority of people interested in a battle rifle I suggest the AR-15 platform for several reasons. The platform is extremely accurate for a semi-auto. Five shot groups at 100 yards measuring less than an inch are certainly not uncommon with this rifle with some quality time at the range. Extreme accuracy can be expected if one is willing to spring for an upper designed for that type shooting. If this tweaks your interest, check out White Oak Precision here. When one thinks of an AR-15, usually the immediate thought as to caliber is the 5.56 NATO round or the .223. What I consider to be the greatest advantage is the number of calibers available in this platform with the purchase of an “upper” in different calibers which can easily and simply be attached to your existing AR-15 lower. While I consider the .223 round to be marginal for a self-defense round, the firepower, accuracy and availability of ammo makes it a must-have. There are a wide variety of uppers in different calibers, many of which can be found here. This gives the shooter the capability of several calibers with the purchase of only the basic AR-15 lower assembly. My personal choice for the off-the-shelf AR platform is Rock River Arms. I have a Rock River lower with uppers in .223 and .458 SOCOM. As previously stated the .223 for accuracy and ammo availability and the .458 for sheer knockdown power out to 200 yards. Due to the availability and price of the ammo to feed the .458, I reload my own. I like this combination for I can use the same magazines for .458 that I use for the .223. For those who choose to have some longer range capabilities for their AR platform I recommend the 6.8X43 or 6.5 Grendel calibers, which provide longer-range capabilities. With the new available ammunition and for those who reload, the Grendel gets the nod in my estimation.

While the original platform for the AR was the AR-10 in .308, uppers and lowers for this weapon are not interchangeable with the AR-15 platform. The AR-10 is a fine choice for those who like the AR but desire the versatility of the 7.62X51/.308 round. Also available is the FN/FAL configuration. This too is a fantastic rifle with great dependability and accuracy.

My personal choice in a battle rifle in .308 caliber is the M1A made by Springfield. I own more than one with full size and carbine versions known as the M1A SOCOM, which has a 16” barrel and composite stock. The .308 is a most effective round out to 800 yards and beyond with an accomplished rifleman. Again, this caliber and platform is harder to master than the AR platform in .223. While the ideal situation is to have a caliber and platform in which one could engage an adversary at a greater distance than they could engage you, being able to hit that target is of primary importance. Again, a couple of hits with a .223 are far superior to 8 misses with a .308.

If one is available, a M1 Garand is also a very effective battle rifle. While limited in firepower due to the 8-round “clip,” the 30-06 caliber is very effective at ranges up to 1000 yards and has been battle tested for almost a century. Owning an original M1 Garand allows one to own a piece of history and a fine battle rifle as well.

Of course there is the choice of the venerable AK-47. Packing more knockdown power than the AR-15 in .223 and at greater range, it is the favorite choice of many. At one time the cost of the firearm and the availability of cheap ammo made this a great choice. The increase in price of both the weapon and ammo over the past couple of years now brings this choice into the price range of the AR platform. The discussion of which weapons platform (AR/AK) is the best battle rifle began over 40 years ago and is still the subject of some great conversations.

Having the ability and the equipment to engage, at distance, roving bands of criminals who are bent on stealing, confiscating and imposing their will on others could prove an invaluable asset in the coming months. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

While this article should provide some basics on selection of equipment for long range shooting, the challenges are many if one seeks to become proficient with such equipment. To that end, I am teaming up with a friend and fellow long-range shooter, Mr. James Lawson, in a series of articles dealing with optics, ballistics, bullet trajectories, wind, temperature, relative humidity and shooting uphill and downhill for those who are interested. The first of these offerings should appear shortly.

---

Recently by Michael Gaddy: Questions That Must Be Asked

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

The United States of Insanity

The United States of Insanity

By Charlie Daniels

November 27, 2009

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2009/soapbox-2009-1127.htm

I have watched the bunch of buffoons on Capitol Hill spend taxpayer's money that the taxpayers haven't even earned yet, and money from taxpayers that haven't even been born yet.

I have seen the leader of the free world bowing and kowtowing to anybody with a title.

I have seen three Navy Seals who captured the murdering scumbag who shot, burned and hung the bodies of four American citizens off a bridge in Fallujah be indicted because the puss ball turned up with a bloody nose.

I have seen the entire military of this country castigated because a few foolish guards put a pair of panties over the head of some Islamic fanatics.

I have seen the global warming farce exposed for the gigantic farce that it is, and still the mainstream media and the gutless politicians and news media will not even acknowledge it for the bald-face lie that it is.

I have seen the Nobel Peace Prize cheapened for all times because it was awarded for nothing more than political correctness.

I have witnessed the whining of a weak and petulant president who acts as if he is not the president but a relief pitcher who can blame all his shortcomings on the guy pitching before he came in.

I have seen the government spend billions of our hard earned dollars on clunkers to enable people to buy Japanese automobiles.

I have lived to see a man elected president who hobnobbed with domestic terrorists, and for twenty years went to a church where an anti-white preacher spewed hatred toward America.

I have seen our nation murder fifty million future citizens in their mother's wombs in the name of "choice."

I have seen a president sit down and have a beer with a black college professor and a white policeman but cannot find the time to honor the troops of whom he is Commander In Chief.

What kind of country allows itself to go so deeply in debt that just the payment on the interest could well equal 75% of its GDP?

What kind of country thinks it can spend it's way out of a recession?

What kind of country is foolish enough to pursue the failed socialistic model of government knowing full well that it has never worked and will never work?

What kind of nation would set back and allow an overwhelmed president and a careless inept Congress tear away the very fabric of America's greatness.

What kind of president vacillates about sending needed troops in the middle of a war?

What kind of country has a president who just can't seem to stop campaigning and seize the reins of power, who keeps reminding us about what a mess he inherited, whose every attempt to fix the economy fails?

What kind of country allows it's elected officials to sign a bill they haven't even read into law.

What kind of country would use kindergarten terminology when describing cold-blooded Islamic murderers?

What kind of president would allow an arrogant Attorney General endanger the lives of everybody in New York City so he can have an anti-American show trial and drag the intelligence agencies, the military and a former administration through the mud of political correctness?

What kind of nation continues to buy our oil from countries that hate us, and use the dollars we pay them to finance terrorism around the world?

Welcome to the United States of Insanity.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

© Copyright – The Charlie Daniels Band 

  

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Mayflower Compact & God: Thanksgiving

Hello All,

I know this is late for the official Thanksgiving day, but that is OK.  It is never too late to be thankful to God.  And top of that, the original one was likely celebrated in October anyhow, and it was more than a one day event.

Veritas Vos Liberabit,

Gill Rapoza

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Mayflower Compact & God: Thanksgiving

By J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 2:14:53 PM ET

http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs112509.shtml

The Mayflower Compact underlines in no uncertain terms the faith in God characteristic of America’s early settlers.

The authoritative language is there. Even though present-day atheists attempt to rewrite history, what they cannot expunge from the historical annals are the exact quotations from persons and documents. They wrestle with interpretations to historical events, but they cannot erase that which is there as documented fact.

One of the main documents highlighting the colonists’ faith in the God of the Bible is the Mayflower Compact. It became the “primary text” for researchers who would follow.

Note the words of colonial leader William Bradford:

“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, by the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc.

“Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enacte, constitute and frame shuch just and equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

“In witnes whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd the .11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our soveraigne lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.”

There was no apology from the early settlers when it came to their belief that their mission was God ordained. They were listening to the Holy Spirit. The Lord Himself was providing them with providential care. Therefore, they were more than willing to heed His every directive.

It was the Bible that was at their fingertips. It was the Bible that was preached forthrightly from the early Christian pulpits. It was the Bible that was revered in the homes. From this Bible, colonists came to understand salvation and the will of the divine in their personal lives.

Therefore, when it came to such documents as the Mayflower Compact, it was as natural as breathing for the document to begin with “In the name of God, Amen.” It was a matter of spiritual course for the wording to continue with underlining the “grace of God.” Furthermore, there was attention given to the colonies’ understanding of the “glorie of God.” It was the “glorie” which they prayed for. It was the “glorie” that they revered and worshiped.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Those Who Would Dominate Us Will First Deny Us Our Arms

Those Who Would Dominate Us Will First Deny Us Our Arms

Veritas Libertas

By Edward Wimberley

Posted November 15, 2009

http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/veritas-libertas-edward-wimberley/2009/nov/15/treaty/

For those who may have thought my earlier commentary on the administration’s interest in denying us our Second Amendment rights was off the mark, you might want to take note that the Obama administration has recently joined a number of other nations supporting the Conference on Arms Treaty (CAT).

This treaty, if adopted, would create a set of international standards that would effectively provide for more stringent regulation and transfer of conventional weapons. This is a reversal of the Bush administration’s policy and will result in the international regulation of conventional arms imported into the U.S. for use by citizens.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has been an advocate of this treaty, as has her husband, former President Bill Clinton who has observed that “Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

Former Secretary of State John Bolton, on the other hand, has been vociferous in his opposition to this proposed treaty saying

“The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

“There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.”

Likewise, former congressman Bob Barr warned that,

“Even though [treaty advocates] all say, ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won’t be affected by all this,’ that’s nonsense.” “There’s no way that if you buy into something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that firearms transfers internationally don’t fall into the hands of people that the U.N. doesn’t like, there’s no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking.”

Not only is this treaty a direct attack upon citizen Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, it is also an attempt to circumvent U.S. constitutional law with international law imposed upon the public by this treaty. In this manner they seek to bypass U.S. constitutional authority.

We should consider these developments and reflect upon the warning from the Father of our country George Washington,

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Now is a very good time to take this admonition to heart and contact the White House and Congress urging them to nix this effort, and to not ratify the treaty if the President and his administration sign it.

These developments should principally serve to convince the skeptical that this President is hell-bent to rob us of our Second Amendment rights and we don’t have to study his words or his actions very deeply to know why?

Those who would dominate us will first deny us our arms!

---

Veritas Libertas is dedicated to commenting upon those issues that serve to either limit or promote truth and liberty in our society. The blog asserts that truth in media, politics and government promotes liberty whereas deception and spin contribute to enslavement and tyranny. Consequently, this blog provides a commentary on local, regional, national and international issues where truth and liberty are at stake. Edward T. Wimberley is an educator and Presbyterian minister. He specializes in a number of areas involving public policy to include aging, health policy, environmental health, environmental policy and law, ecological philosophy and ethics, human ecology and more. His newest book is with Johns Hopkins University Press and is entitled Nested Ecology: The Place of Humans in the Ecological Hierarchy. He has also co-authored a text on health policy and published more than 50 articles in a variety of professional journals. Dr. Wimberley holds a B.A. in psychology from Stetson University, a M.Div. degree from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, a M.S.W. from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Social Work, and a Ph.D. in public affairs from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Wimberley has taught at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia, and is the Founding Dean of the Colleges of Education and Professional Studies at Florida Gulf Coast University. Dr. Wimberley is also a 1989-1990 Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---