BRUSHFIRES

LETTER TO GLENN BECK

2009-06-25T16:29:00.000-07:00

Glenn,

Nearly two weeks ago I was at work listening to your show when a Marine called in from Camp Lejuene, North Carolina with a question pertaining to his oath of service. He wanted to know what service men and women should do if the President of the United States gives orders or directives which are unconstitutional.
Here is the Oath of Enlistment:
I, ____________, do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Here is the way that this works:
FIRST - We swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies - this notion is followed with a semicolon meaning the next notion revolves around the first in that it helps to complete the thought.
SECOND - Just incase there would ever be any misunderstanding, or incase any alliances should ever be formed for some reason, this oath is makes clear what orders we are to obey or who we are to follow and it sees to it that we are to swear allegiance to the same [who support and defend the Constitution].
THIRD - All this is followed with the notion of the Chain of Command i.e. the President, Officers, and the UCMJ, all of which is to be followed as long as the first two criteria are met (they are supporting the Constitution and give it their allegiance).
As you can see, all military service revolves around the Constitution alone and if anything begins to pull out of orbit it then becomes dangerous to the rest of the Constitutional system.
I listen to you quite often, Glenn, and your answer to this Marine was troubling, it was not what I expected to hear. In fact I could hardly believe what was coming through the speakers from the man who is building his career on telling people about the necessity of principles. You told a US Marine that if he believed that he was given unconstitutional orders then he should get out of the military even if he had to serve time in the brig. You said that that would be the honorable thing to do if that’s what it would take. You said that you do not want people like that watching the back of your nephews in Iraq.
WE TAKE AN OATH, Glenn, so much for principles, right? According to your explanation, we should not be swearing an oath to the constitution but to our own personal preferences, if that is the case then we would be taking an oath that reads more like this:
"I,_________, do solemnly swear that I will hope that the United States government officials will follow the Constitution; in the meantime I will do whatever government officials say; should they ever cease to follow the Constitution, then I will just get out even if it means going to the brig. So whatever".
I have been in the United States Marine Corp for over 10 years, Glenn, and although some only take the Oath as a matter of formality in order to get to boot camp, I took this oath very seriously and there are a lot more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines out there like me. I swore to defend the Constitution, and that is what I will do. If I believe that the US Government is doing something unconstitutional then I will go up the Chain of Command all the way to the President if that is what it takes. The way to do this effectively is to educate fellow servicemen and women on the Constitution so as to foster allegiance to our oath and the Constitution. How do I support or defend the Constitution by just throwing my hands up and volunteering for brig time? How do I defend the Constitution by recanting my oath? Where would the honor be in that Glenn?
You have no idea who you are talking to, Glenn, when you say you do not want “people like that” watching you nephews back. I have been deployed three times, I have a college education, and I have been through some of the most grueling combat training available in the U.S. I believe that the elected officials in power are out of touch with the American people and many of the American people and nearly all of the elected officials are out of touch with the United States Constitution. However, what seems to be an unfortunate reality does not negate my oath. It is my overwhelming sense of duty to my oath and my principles that makes me, as well as service men and women and countless Marines like me, the best and most qualified people to watch your nephews back.
When members of the armed services go to war, they should know that it is being done in accordance with the Constitution. According to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Congress has to declare war before we commit any acts of war. Why? Because if it is so important to go to war that members of our military will have to put their lives on the line, then the Congress must be willing to put their lives on the line as well or at least go on record as having voted for or against military action. Also, Congress does not have the authority to delegate their Constitutional responsibilities to anyone else, including the President. For instance, the President does not have the Constitutional authority to send troops to war for any time period, even 60 or 90 days no matter what Congress says.
It is past time for members of our military to refuse to follow certain orders. I remember the aftermath of Katrina when I was to go, as a Marine, to help “Preserve order, protect property, and enforce regulation”. Turns out that “help” involved confiscating private individuals’ firearms, not from looters or thieves, but from citizens who were in their homes making an effort to protect their property. I did not go. Shame on any member of the armed services, and law enforcement who took part or simply remained quiet during these acts of Constitutional treason.
Maybe, Glenn, if the members of the armed services had been more vigilant over the centuries then this country would not be in the shape that it’s in today.But according to you, forget education, military protocol, vigilance. Let’s all just follow blindly or go to the brig because that’s where the honor is.To be honest, Glenn, many of us hear things like this and can’t help but wonder if the 9/12 Project is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Here you are preaching principle while my brothers in arms continue to die and all you have to say is if we think our leaders are wrong then just walk into the brig.
Shame on you, Glenn, for you poor attempt to define honorable actions to the men and women who take the oath that has so far kept us mostly free. Please reconsider whether or not you are worth a $50 million dollar contract as well as you fictitious stand on principles.

Paul Curtman
SGT/USMC

Guess Who's Back!

2009-06-19T15:28:00.000-07:00

After a little over one year, I can no longer keep my brushfire hidden under the bushel of inactivity. In the last year the country has seen an unprecedented power grab by the Federal government who is clenching down on the freedoms of American citizens with the kind of strength that would impress Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler each. Meanwhile, back at the house, most Americans will only talk of their disgust and their opinions and concerns don't leave there homes so as not to offend anyone at work or in there neighborhood. After all, we are constantly bombarded with the modern rules of social etiquette by people telling us that we should be sensitive to the feelings of others around us and that politics and religion are taboo topics for conversation when in public because those topics foster emotions that can be to extreme. Well guess what? "I WANT EXTREME!!!!!!!"Please, before we are all slaves to a tyrannical group of elitist and statist who think that they can draw the moral line and tax someones paycheck 90% because they feel it would keep things right and "fair." Please, for the sake of liberty, can someone be extreme enough to stand on the principles that are supposed to secure or natural rights of personal property, libert, and the freedom to speak our minds without the threat of being charged with hate crimes? Is it extreme to be against the Federal government taking ownership of all waters in the United States? Is it extreme to follow the teachings of Christ from the New Testament?
Why is it that recently our Federal government slapped the "Extremist" tag on pro-lifers, libertarians, homeschoolers, and veterans? Is it extreme to stand for the Constitution?
I want a leader who is extreme enough to stand by his principles instead of on his political leverage. I want an extreme state rep or state senator who will say that the Federal government cannot put its nose into any of the states business except where the US Constitutions gives them the EXPLICIT power to do so.
I want an extreme leader who would be willing to do without the perks that elected office brings because they want to set an example of what public service means.
Its about time the extremist stepped up to the plate and started making things happen. Its about time one of these extremist stepped up and said "FOLLOW ME!!!"
I WANT an extremist, I WANT a real leader. I want someone who's agenda is the US Constitution and not just what the party puts on his plate. America hasn't seen real leadership since Andrew Jackson, who, by the way, shut down the first central bank in America much like our current non-federal Federal Reserve. Where is the George Washington who is willing to risk his everything, money and all, just to do whats right?
I will never give money, time, or any platform to any party anymore because I now see that, for years, the American people have been looking for leadership for parties instead of leadership for freedom. Not anymore.
My bushel of inactivity is now in the fire instead of over it, this brushfire will burn until there is nothing left to burn. May God be with us all.

Executive Orders: No Checks, No Balances; No Freedoms

2008-05-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

A Presidential Executive Order, whether constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. The following Executive Orders, now recorded in the Federal Register, can be put into effect at any time an emergency is declared:

10995 - Seizure of all communications media.
10997 - Seizure of all electrical power and fossil fuels.
10998 - Seizure of all food resources, farms and farm equipment.
10999 - Seizure of all transportation and control of all highways and seaports.
11000 - Seizure of all civilians for work under Federal supervision.
11001 - Federal takeover of all health, education and welfare.
11002 - Authorizes FEMA to order Postmaster General to register every man, woman and child in the United States.
11003 - Seizure of all aircraft and airports.
11004 - Housing and Finance given authority for population relocation.
11005 - Seizure of railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities.
11051 - The Director of the Office of Emergency Planning authorized to put Executive Orders into effect in "times of increased international tension or financial crisis". Is also to perform such additional functions as the President may direct.

Executive Orders like these are obvious violations of Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislative cannot be convened), against domestic violence."

When people fail to control their government, The government will control the people. Here are the two ways governments have been doing this all though history: police power and the controlling of necessities. Stated simply: the dictatorial power of the Executive rests primarily on two Executive Orders - Executive Order 12919 and Executive Order 12407.

E. O. 12919 was signed into law by President Clinton June 3, 1994, which gathers together into one document the authority of the previously mentioned 11 Executive Orders. This means that FEMA would take over 28 Executive Departments and Agencies whenever the President of the United States declares a national emergency (Read E.O. 11921 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-11921.htm ) This was all made possible by the 1933 War Emergency Powers Act, which authorizes the President to suspend the Constitution. There is no known Executive Order outlining the restoration of the Constitution after the national emergency has ended.
Executive Order 12407 provides the regional and local mechanisms and manpower for carrying out the provisions of E. O. 12919. Signed by President Reagan on Feb. 22, 1983, this Order sets up ten Federal Regional Councils to govern ten Federal Regions made up of the fifty States.

The 10 Federal Regions are as follows:

REGION I: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Regional Capitol: Boston
REGION II: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands. Regional Capitol: New York City
REGION III: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia. Regional Capitol: Philadelphia
REGION IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee. Regional Capitol: Atlanta
REGION V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin. Regional Capitol: Chicago
REGION VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. Regional Capitol: Dallas-Fort Worth
REGION VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska. Regional Capitol: Kansas City
REGION VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. Regional Capitol: Denver
REGION IX: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada. Regional Capitol: San Francisco
REGION X: Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Regional Capitol: Seattle

Each of the States is to be divided into sub-regions, to ensure that Federal Executive control is provided over every community.

The President can declare a National Emergency at any time for anything true or fabricated, and freeze everything. Congress, and the States, are powerless to prevent such an Executive Dictatorship, as long as the President advises Congress in a timely matter (like advising of a possible war with nuclear capable Iran).

By proclaiming and putting into effect Executive Order No. 12919, the President would put the United States under total Martial Law and Military Dictatotorship.

You can search the Executive Orders Archives for yourself and read the full text of each one at the following website: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/ .

American Liberties, Going Once,... Going Twice......

2008-05-22T10:43:00.000-07:00

"We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices, in return for the false promise of more security... The America being designed right now won't resemble the America we've been defending... The danger isn't that Big Brother may storm the castle gates. The danger is that Americans don't realize that he is already inside the castle walls."

-- Wayne LaPierre

PATRIOT ACT : no more freedom

2008-05-20T23:34:00.000-07:00

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS SET FORTH IN THE PATRIOT ACT

FACT: A NEW DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
Domestic terrorism is terrorism carried out within the jurisdiction of the United States, terrorism outside the jurisdiction of the United States is deemed “International Terrorism.” (Sec 802 USA PATRIOT Act)

Section 802, USA PATRIOT ACT, definition of “terrorism”.
A person engages in domestic terrorism when they are involved in
“acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended-- to intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

What does it mean?
This is an extremely broad definition of terrorism that now encompasses such crimes as assault and battery as acts of terrorism just to name a couple. Notice how such obtuse language is used “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce…” This leaves the definition of terrorism up to those in power to decide if something appears to be intimidating or coercive. There goes our right to freedom of speech, assemble, religion, or anything we might do in protest because we could be labeled terrorist and therefore suffer the consequences of having committed terrorist acts.

As a citizen of the United States of America, I have a constitutional right to influence the policy of my government but now if it appears that I am attempting to intimidate or be coercive then I am a terrorist. Would it be intimidating to say I believe that legalizing abortion would only bring judgment from God onto America? It might appear to be, so then, I must surrender my freedom of speech and my freedom of religion to the government so that I do not suffer the consequences of being arrested for terrorism.

What are the consequences of engaging in terrorist activities as per the USA PATRIOT Act?

SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to "stop other unlawful activities." It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.
SECTION 408 creates "lifetime parole" (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTION 412 authorizes mandatory detention of suspected terrorist
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

These are just a few of the penalties that you might have to deal with if you are even a suspected terrorist.

Remember, you have no more liberties, if you belong to a religious group, an activist group or if you pretty much identifiy with any organization that might appear to disagree on governmental policy, you are a suspected terrorist and are therefore subject to mandatory detention for an indefinate period of time with out trial, formal charges, or representation.

IT ISN'T COMMING, ITS' HERE . NO MORE FREEDOM. WE ARE ALL IN DANGER NOW.

Read the PATRIOT Act for yourself at the following links, it borring but it is worth it. Read it like it is some kind of shady used car salesman reading it to you, its' creepy!

http://www.public-i.org/docs/PatriotAct/story_01_020703_doc_1.pdf
http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web6.exe?Command=First&File=Patriot_Act

IF YOU ARE LIKE MOST AMERICANS......

2008-05-05T09:30:00.000-07:00

Knowledge is power.
- Sir Francis Bacon

To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.
- Benjamin Disraeli

Are you are one of those people who are "fed up with the direction this country is going", you sit around the dinner table with a few close friends and complain about the hypocrites, cheats and liars that fill the elected seats in Washington?If you are like me, you often find yourself raising your voice after the sound bite plays on a news break because you're not stupid and you can tell when a candidate is totally playing the camera and the audience when they talk about being pinned down by sniper fire! You see the photo on the front page of a local newspaper and take a minute to honor the fallen Marine whose casket is being carried by members of his platoon in their dress blues and at the same time can't figure out why it has taken less time to push the Axis powers back across Europe and destroy them to end WWII and we have been in Iraq for five years-going on 10! You stop for gas a few times a week and each time you pay more and more and more while our elected officials give in to the oil cartel known as OPEC, meantime the United States sits on untapped oil fields in Alaska as well as the Gulf of Mexico. What's worse is that you stop by the grocery store to find out that the price of bread has gone up a dollar along with milk and now the grocery store is rationing rice. You turn on the car radio to listen to a financial expert talk about why the value of the dollar is dropping but fails to mention that the Federal Reserve does not back the dollar by anything except their promise that "it's still good, don't worry!" If you attend church anywhere, you have figured out by now that preachers are being limited as to what they are allowed to preach thus taking away WE THE PEOPLEs right to free speech and our freedom of religion. Other rights being threatened include WE THE PEOPLEs right to keep and bear arms, but according to the courts:"that might just be a right for people who belong to a well regulated militia!" If you are standing around a bus stop somewhere, you might have been approached by someone petitioning to stop eminent domain for the purpose of economic prosperity, if you are thinking, you might get concerned when you realize that it now takes the exercising of WE THE PEOPLEs right to petition in order to, hopefully, get back WE THE PEOPLEs right to own personal property.

If you're like most Americans, you haven't noticed any of this going on because you are to busy trying to figure out which i-pod you want to buy when you receive your economic stimulus check. If you are like most Americans, you don't even know why your getting it but you're glad you are because you've been eyeing those new shoes or that new HDTV at the store or because you want to afford to get to the store AND buy food. If you are like most Americans, you are all caught up in the distractions that are being thrown at you from every direction that you don't even think to see what our leaders have been up to in congress, the White House, or overseas. If you are like most Americans, you have not seen that The Republic is being undermined by our own officials without any regard for WE THE PEOPLE.
If your like most Americans, you have never read the US Constitution and don't even know the name of you congressman. If you are like most Americans, you will one day pay the price for your laziness induced lack of ignorance. You will have let the government take ownership of you and there is not much you will be able to do about it because they have taken away your freedom by slowly stripping you of your liberties. You won't even notice because while this is happening, they will distract you with steroids in baseball and economic stimulus checks.

If you are like most Americans, you fool yourself into thinking you know whats going by putting little American flags all over your car, which by the way really is the least you can do!

ONLY A MIRACLE CAN SAVE AMERICA NOW!

2008-04-15T09:01:00.000-07:00

The following is from an article written by Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party Presidential Candidate

Every four years, conservative "pragmatists" trot out the "We Can't Let So-And-So Win" mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called "conservative" Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different.

This year's Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul.

Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and "gay rights."

To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall.

So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John "McSame" McCain.

Let's be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one.

On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to "family values" voters. He is no friend to America's blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration.

On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism.

But this is where the Boogeyman comes in.

At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, "We can't let Hillary Clinton win. We can't let Barack Obama win." Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican "bigwig." (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.)

I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the "lesser of two evils" but "the evil of two lessers." (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are "crunch time" for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues.

America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country's independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and "free trade" deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery.

And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance.

If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs.

So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain.

I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, "So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other." To which I say, No you don't. You can think outside the box. You don't have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates.

You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate.

I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush's preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government--not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state--is a wasted vote!

At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience?

It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can't win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don't act like people of principle.

If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America's independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that.

America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we--as did the priests of old--would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document--as did our Founding Fathers--that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle.

I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who "has no chance of winning" in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do.

So, who will join me?
Are you willing to do your part?

Does God Have a Specific Word?

2008-04-03T13:23:00.001-07:00

When nations of people reach a certain point of rebellion and sin against God, He rejects them. This is something that has occurred again and again throughout the history of nations. Free and happy people become enslaved and miserable; Republics and democracies are turned over to dictatorships, to socialistic or communistic systems of government. Read the following; reflect on it, and see how much of what God has said here can be applied to America.

“For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.” (Proverbs 1:29-32).

America has manifested hatred for the “knowledge” and the “fear” of the Lord, and have rejected His “counsel.” All of this is seen in government’s attitude towards the Bible. It is seen in the unceasing mockery of God and His word by the media and the entertainment world which is richly rewarded by the American public rewards with applause, adulation and vast sums of money. God and Bible bashing is well rewarded in this “One nation under God.”
Having rejected God’s warnings that, “the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15). America is now eating ”the fruit of her own way.” What has been sown in terms of the killing of millions of babies, the pandering to perverts and other criminals, and the proud godlessness of this society is now being reaped and eaten.
America is “filled with her own devices,” ignoring God’s warning that, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:13). The motto of the Ford Motor Company is, “Ford has a better idea.” Ford’s motto has become the national mentality; Americans, now believe they have “a better idea” than God concerning everything. When God looks down on what is going on in this country now, He no doubt sees, what He saw before the flood: Genesis 6:5 says He “saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
. “For the turning away of the simple shall slay them.” The “simple” are those who are extremely gullible; who, to their own undoing, buy into any false philosophy or system that comes along no matter how foolish, dangerous, of historically disproven it may be. America’s institutions, the seats of government, the universities and the churches (mostly “churches” in name only) are filled with simpletons who in their own conceit have turned away from God and the Bible. Add to this the millions of simpletons on the street who, though they think themselves to be wise, have become fools (Rom. 1:22). Norman Thomas wrote, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
“The prosperity of fools shall destroy them.” America’s unprecedented prosperity which should have made us the most God-praising and thankful people who ever lived, has instead turned us into a nation of rich fools (See Luke 12:16-21). America is like the prodigal son, who “wasted his substance with riotous living…spent all, … and began to be in want.” (Luke 15:13, 14). The difference is that America indicates no inclination to repent and cry out to God saying, “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee” (Luke 15:18). CharleyO

The Merida Initiative

2008-04-01T23:03:00.000-07:00

For quite some time now, there has been quite a heated debate among Americans concerning illegal immigration. Some Americans say build a wall and others say amnesty for all illegal aliens. Well, thanks to President Bush, it looks as though the latter will get their wish. Not only that, but all Mexicans may soon have complete and free access to America and Canada. How? Just keep reading, it gets worse.

The arrangement is called the Merida Initiative and it was authorized by President Bush and what it does is secure Mexico’s southern boarder . It has been in the works for about a year with absolutely no approval from congress or the American people and yet it is the United States taxpayer who is going to pay for all of it. How much is it costing you, the U.S. taxpayer? $1.4 billion. That is a lot of money to put into the hands of a government famous for corruption on all levels. It is treasonous for our president to give Americans money to a government which has for so long undermined our laws of immigration, even conspiring to help its citizens illegally cross our boarder.

Why has all this not been made public to the American people? There are several reasons, my personal favorite is the reason given by the State Department who has taken the lead role, they say that Mexico is “sensitive” because Mexico is protective of its sovereignty and worried about private security contractors coming to train Mexicans for boarder security.
In October of 2007, the State Department released that $550 million had already been spent in aid to Mexico to provide them with aircraft, software, and other technology.

According to the State Department,
This partnership would support coordinated strategies to:

Produce a safer and more secure hemisphere where criminal organizations no longer threaten governments and regional security; and
Prevent the entry and spread of illicit drugs and transnational threats throughout the region and to the United States.

Notice the words “hemisphere” and “region”… doesn't this sound like the common North American Perimeter that is described in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? If you changed those words to “America” it would sound like legislation our own elected legislators should have typed up.

The State Department goes on to say:
To achieve these goals, President Bush has requested $550 million as part of a multi-year program to provide:

Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.
Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.
Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice – vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.
Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.
Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leaders’ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.
Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.

This all sounds like something America should have for our own boarder protection but at the same time President Bush is generous with our money to help protect Mexico’s southern boarder, he refuses to increase the funding of our own Boarder Patrol until they can operate efficiently and also refuses to pardon two Boarder Patrol agents who were sent to prison for doing their jobs.

The following is part of an analysis by the Brookings institute released in early November, 2007:

Under the terms of this Initiative, the United States will commit 41% of the $500 million grant to military equipment, which will include six brand new Bell 412 helicopters and two Casa 245 twin-engine aircraft. Accompanying both is a two year agreement to provide maintenance and spare parts. This represents a significant improvement over the gift of Hueys in the 1990s under the Excess Defense Articles program. Those helicopters soon became inoperable and were cannibalized for spare parts, leaving a bitter taste by the recipients of “hand me downs.” Now, the grant of new equipment, plus the maintenance and spare parts, assures the Mexican armed forces that we take collaboration seriously. However, the planned use of the Casa aircraft needs to be discussed publicly, given its multiple and potential capabilities from medevac to cargo, to intelligence gathering, even to use as a gunship equipped with light cannons. There is encouraging news in the Initiative that 59% of the grant will be earmarked for civilian agencies responsible for law enforcement. This is much needed, but the number and complexity of Mexico’s security agencies will need more than cash to reform. Multiple Federal agencies have earned a reputation for ineffectiveness and corruption; among them, the Attorney General’s Federal Investigative Agency, the Ministry of Public Security’s Federal Preventive Police Force, the Ministry of Government’s Center for Investigation and National Security and the Ministry of Finance’s Customs Administration. Furthermore, the 32 states within the Mexican Federation hold responsibility for crime control. State security agencies and the courts have not protected the citizenry effectively. According to surveys carried out by Transparencia Mexicana, the police and justice system are perceived as having worse problems of corruption and inefficiency than other public agencies.

Did YOU vote for this? Did your congressman or senetor vote for this? Did you or your representative even know about it?

WHERE HAS OUR REPRESENTATION GONE?!?!?!?!

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

2008-04-01T20:25:00.000-07:00

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is, in short, the foundation of a merger between the three nations of North America, or to use the language found in some official documentation, “a North American economic and security community.” Many have come to call this agreement what it really is, the beginnings of a North American Union, to be complete by 2010.
Does this sound unbelievable? Of course, it should be unbelievable! It is however; all too believable (as well as unconstitutional), just read the official documentation.
Consider the following information. On March 23, 2005 President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas with the president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, and the Prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin, to sign an agreement. Following this meeting, the three heads of state traveled to Baylor University in Waco to announce the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
The SPP takes concerns usually associated with national security or issues concerning a nation’s sovereignty and turns them into issues common to the continent of North America. Such issues include immigration, security, boarder perimeters, transportation as well as trade and industry. These are all issues that help to facilitate the issues of all three nations as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The language in the SPP agreement does not reflect concern for the citizens but rather seems to ensure the security and prosperity of multinational corporations. In fact, www.eagleforum.org reports that “Thanks to the investigative work of Dr. Jerry Corsi, we have learned that SPP's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating in the NAFTA office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, which refuses to reveal the groups' members because, in the words of SPP spokesperson Geri Word, the Bush Administration does not want them "distracted by calls from the public." Corsi discovered in June 2006 that SPP issued a "Report to Leaders" on June 27, 2005 that shows SPP's extensive interaction with government and business groups in the three countries.”
Later that spring on May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) released a 59 page document in which they outlined a five year plan to the establishment of a North American Union. The CFR also stated in this document that the three men who met in Waco, Texas on 23, March had “committed their governments” toward the North American Community goal. One of the key individuals in the CFR who has been a staunch supporter and advocate in creating a new North American Community is a man named Robert Pastor. In 2001, Robert Pastor released a book entitled Toward a North American Community in which he reveals details of a plan for a North American perimeter including a plan for a transportation system that spans the continent. Pastor claims that on April 22, 2001, President Bush made a “commitment to hemispheric integration” by signing another document, The Declaration of Quebec City.
On June 27, 2005, while attending a SPP meeting in Ottawa, Canada, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, stated “we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our boarders.” A press release was later issued by the White House calling the Ottawa meeting “an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”
On March 31, 2006, President Bush once again met with the heads of state of Canada and Mexico only this time the meeting took place in Cancun, Mexico. This meeting served as a celebration of the first anniversary of the SPP after which President Bush immediately demanded that Congress pass immigration legislation with a worker permit program.
The reason that the United States boarders have not been secured is because ‘Why secure boarders you hope to erase?’ Do you think that is a foolish argument to make? You might not when you learn that President Bush is more concerned with securing Mexico’s southern boarder. Why wouldn’t he, it will ultimately become the U.S.’s southern boarder, thus ensuring the SPP’s goal of attaining a common North American perimeter. Hard to believe? Then why did President Bush give Mexico over $1.4 billion of tax payers money to secure its southern boarder when he signed the Merida Initiative early in 2008?
Here are some links of interest.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/ - 36k
http://www.spp.gov/
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

CIVIL ASSISTANCE PLAN (forget the republic plan)

2008-03-29T23:29:00.000-07:00

“…the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men”
- John Adams

FACT: On February 14, 2008, at U.S. Army North Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, General Gene Renuart (USAF), commander of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), signed an agreement, the Civil Assistance Plan, with Lt. General Marc Dumais (CAF), commander of Canada Command.
This agreement is defined as the Civil Assistance Plan and was planned and executed without the approval of the U.S. Congress, nor did Congress introduce, discuss, or vote on any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement.
The Civil Assistance Plan allows for the military of Canada to deploy troops on U.S. soil should the President of the U.S. declare a national emergency. Such emergencies include but are not limited to, floods, forest fires, terrorist attacks, and civil disturbances such as riots “in order”, as Gen. Renaurt said, “to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property.”

WHATS THE BIG DEAL
The big deal is that this agreement was unconstitutional. The U.S. Military is not a branch of government but rather is under the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. The Civil Assistance Plan is a formal agreement between two sovereign states in reference to peace, alliance, and international relations and is therefore a treaty.
Article II. Sec. II, U.S. Constitution states in reference to treaties:
He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

FACT: The Civil Assistance Plan is unconstitutional due to the fact that it was signed without Senate approval or any kind of legislative oversight , nor was it written or signed by the president.

FACT: The U.S. has 109 million people fit for military service as of 2005 (CIA World Factbook)
Canada has just over 13 million people fit for military service
So why would we need this agreement? The U.S. Military is not spread so thin that it cannot contain any civil unrest or emergency. There are over 200 major military instillations in the U.S. alone, then consider the hundreds that are over seas as well as the several battalions and brigades that are deployed on various types of unit deployments.

The reason for this agreement is to begin a push toward a common North American Military with the goal of sharing North American Security concerns of civil peace and security for a common North American Boarder. THIS IS REAL. Read more at the following websites:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6572
http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html

Other unconstitutional agreements that you may want to google include The Security and Prosperity Partnership, as well as the Merida Initiative of which both are treaties imposed without regard to constitutional policy.

No Matter what you take from this, the undeniable fact is that this agreement was unconstitutional, done without representation by WE THE PEOPLE, negating all constitutional policy regarding the U.S. Military and the creation of treaties.

WE THE PEOPLE

2008-03-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

"...whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such slavish conditions, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to rid themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation,... And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power..." - John Locke

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Founding Fathers of American Government, with Godly wisdom, structured the new American government to be divided into three branches, the Executive branch, the Legislative, and the Judicial. This system of government is a designed to keep the federal government small and to keep it from growing to powerful to quickly. If someone were to ask you which branch of government was the most powerful, what would you say? Some might say the executive, but anything the president does can be undermined by the other two branches very quickly. If you said the judicial branch, keep in mind they can only strike down rulings or laws already in effect and they can only hear a limited number of cases each year. If you said the legislative branch you would be right for it is they who are elected more often by the citizens, the legislative branch introduces and passes all legislation, and are entirely more active than the other two branches therefore the the other two branches are and should be subordinate.

There is a more powerful check on the American government that is written into the US Constitution that is all to often ignored. It is written into the preamble to the Constitution. It was the preamble that expressed the Founding Fathers reason and right to create a new government and it did not begin with "We who are rich" or "We who are more intelligent than the rest of the Americans", it began with WE THE PEOPLE. As the preamble to the US Constitution states, it is up to the people to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. By this I take it that the Founding Fathers would whole heartedly expect the citizens of America to organize and act out of concern for the welfare of the American citizen when concern by our elected officials is not evident in their actions (their concern seems to always taper off after an election).

All power is given to the government by the people with trust in hopes of attaining an end, that is an end in which liberty and freedom is secured to the citizens. However, should that end ever be ignored and neglected or even opposed, then that trust is forfeited back into the hands of the citizens who gave it and it is those citizens who decide its new placement where they think best to ensure their safety and security. Thus is a perpetual cycle in which the supreme power remains with the people and each new form of government, legislators, etc... are in danger of the people should that new government ever be so stupid and careless or wicked to carry on with designs against the freedom and liberty its citizens.

The last part of the preamble establishes that WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who have ordained and established the Constitution of the United States, therefore it is WE THE PEOPLE who are supreme to the powers that it commissions.

Congress, Curency, and the Gold/Silver Standard

2008-03-19T13:16:00.001-07:00

Aticle 1 Section 8, US Constitution

[Congress (as the citizens elected representatives) holds the authority]
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

"Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
- Alan Greenspan, (1966), US Federal Reserve Chairman

The US Constitution directly gives the power over American currency to the Legislative branch of the American government. It is our elected officials who are charged with all maters concerning US currency and the US Constitution does not give them the authority to delegate tat power to any other entity and yet they have. Unfortunately the citizens of America are now at the mercy of a private oranization who have the power to control interest rates and the circulation of money at its own leisure. Does it strike anyone funny that since a private bank controls that kind of power that they would manipulate the exchange of currency to further their own profit?Notice also that the US Congress has the duty to establish standards of weights and measures to coinage. This isn't talking about how big a quarter is supposed to be. It is talking about the US Congress' duty to establish the standard weight for minted coins that are backed by or minted from precious metals and this isn't anything new.

The Coinage Act of 1792 set the first standard of weights and measures all backed by gold and silver except for the cent and half-cent which was minted in Copper (also authorized by the US Congress and signed into law by President George Washington the same year).

Americans need to wake up and realize that we have let our right to representation slip away while we have slept in the bed of complentcy. We need to act, what ever it tkes to make our representatives listen to us. This is our country and our Constitution. Our elected official are not above the law of the land and yet they have sold out the citizens whos representation they have been charged with.

The following is a list of the coinage, each ones weight and measure and the precious metal used to mint it as it appeared in the Coinage Act of 1792, as authorized by the US Congress, and as signed into law by President George Washington.

Eagles
$10
247 4/8 grain (16.0 g) pure or 270 grain (17.5 g) standard gold
Half Eagles
$5
123 6/8 grain (8.02 g) pure or 135 grain (8.75 g) standard gold
Quarter Eagles
$2.50
61 7/8 grain (4.01 g) pure or 67 4/8 grain (4.37 g) standard gold
Dollars or Units
$1
371 4/16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver
Half Dollars
$0.50
185 10/16 grain (12.0 g) pure or 208 grain (13.5 g) standard silver
Quarter Dollars
$0.25
92 13/16 grain (6.01 g) pure or 104 grains (6.74 g) standard silver
Dismes
$0.10
37 2/16 grain (2.41 g) pure or 41 3/5 grain (2.70 g) standard silver
Half Dismes
$0.05
18 9/16 grain (1.20 g) pure or 20 4/5 grain (1.35 g) standard silver
Cents
$0.01
11 pennyweights (17.1 g) of copper
Half Cents
$0.005
5 1/2 pennyweights (8.55 g) of copper

Falsehoods of the Federal Reserve

2008-03-17T11:27:00.001-07:00

The following is an excerpt of an article, A Primer About the Fed, written y John F. McManus in the January 7, 2008 issue of The New American.

Among the falsehoods undergoing the Fed’s existence, the chief is that money – a medium for exchange- has to be managed. Honest money has always been a commodity accepted by all. Commodities don’t have to be managed. History indicates that shells, cattle, tobacco, and salt were employed as money. But history also tells us that desirability, divisibility, transportability, durability, and relative scarcity are important characteristics of useful money. That being the case, mankind’s wisdom settled on precious metals, gold being the most common choice, as the best commodity to use for money.
Because it is a commodity, the value of gold isn’t managed. The marketplace makes that decision. It can safely be said that there has never been honesty in the management of money in all history. Nor is there honesty in the Fed’s management of the value of the U. S. dollar. Need something to back up that statement? When announcing their most recent cut in interest rates, the Fed’s gurus stated that they took their action because “some inflation risks remain.” They are counting on the lie that equates inflation with rising prices. That’s completely wrong. Inflation is an increase in the quantity of currency (something the Fed accomplishes repeatedly) that causes a lowering of currency’s value and a corresponding rise in the number of dollars sought for goods or services. Rising prices are an effect not the cause, of inflation. If you believe inflation is rising prices, then you likely also believe that wet streets cause rain.
Another of the Fed’s falsehoods is its claim that the Constitution properly authorized Congress to create it. Not so! The Constitution authorized Congress to “coin money,” not establish a bank, and not give a private entity power to “manage” the nation’s economy. Congress was authorized to create a mint where precious metal could be shaped into coinage of a fixed size, weight, and purity. That’s all! The Founders knew that this would stimulate commerce, and it did.
Federal Reserve currency now in use has replaced America’s gold-backed dollars, even silver-backed dollars. There is nothing backing the current dollar except the promise of politicians and economist. How much does the Fed in crease the supply of dollars? Until recently, the Fed published a measuring stick called M-3. This was the best indicator of how many dollars there are. However, in keeping with the dishonesty surrounding all of the Fed’s actions, this useful measuring device is no longer available to the public. And Congress continues to sit idly and let the Fed do whatever its governors desire.
In their Communist Manifest, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels listed steps needed to seize control of a nation. The fifth of their 10 planks calls for “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and exclusive monopoly.” Even though the Fed is not “the State” controlling money and credit, the monopoly aspect of the Marxian plan is key. It is possessed by the Federal Reserve.
What must be done to correct this ongoing un-American injustice? Congress must take two major steps: 1) Abolish the Fed; and 2) Return to precious metal-backed currency whose amount, and therefore whose value, cannot be manipulated. Until these steps are taken, the American people – and anyone else who relies on the steadily depreciating dollar – are at the mercy of the unelected, unsupervised, and unaccountable few who lead the Federal Reserve.
_________________

Without Representation

2008-03-03T12:07:00.000-08:00

"If taxes are laid upon us without our having a legal representation where they are laid, we are reduced from the character of free subjects to the state of tributary slaves."
- Samuel Adams

“No taxation without representation” was a term coined by Jonathon Mayhew in 1750 while he was preaching a sermon in Boston Mass. It soon became a slogan used by the colonist to explain their anger at the British government who controlled colonial trade and taxed the imports and exports without representation from the Americans. Such lack of representation resulted in the passage of the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townsend Act of 1767 just to name two. This lack of representation to the British parliament lead to colonist staging such revolutionary demonstrations as the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

All it took to start the America revolution was lack of representation. How many of you know what your representatives voted on last time they were in session? Do you even know what bills are on the floor or in committee? When was the last time your representatives sent you a letter to tell you what they have been up to or asked you what your interest were? If your elected representative does not know about your interest then he cannot represent your interest. Do you know about all the taxes that you most likely pay? Just a few of them would include, but definitely not be limited to,:

Social Security tax, Medicare tax, Transfer tax,
Excise tax, Luxury tax, Sin tax, Property tax,
Sales tax, Use tax, Gas tax, Payroll tax,
Federal insurance Contributions tax,
Federal Unemployment tax, Real Estate Tax…

I’m sure you didn’t even know you pay for most these and I’m sure you don’t even know about all the other taxes that are costing you hundreds, or thousands of dollars every year.

What about representation for legislation? One person commented on Hate Crimes legislation that has been voted on by the U.S. Congress. Did you even know that your representative has voted on hate crime legislation that could make it a crime for you to verbally express you opinions? So much for the First Amendment!

So I guess here’s the news flash, YOU DON’T HAVE THE REPRESENTATION YOU THINK YOU DO, and that’s IF THEY EVEN SHOW UP TO VOTE!!!

EMINENT DOMAIN

2008-02-29T11:00:00.000-08:00

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

- Amendment V, U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment is meant to limit the right of eminent domain by requiring that government seizure of personal property be for "public use" and that "just compensation" be paid to the former owner. The term eminent domain is used primarily in the United States, and is an adaption of a term used in a legal treatise, De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius, in 1625, who used the term dominium eminens.

“Public use” can be an extremely broad phrase and believe me the United States Supreme Court as well as various State Courts have taken full advantage of this. As early as 1829 States gave eminent domain authority to freight and passenger railroad companies, allowing a private company to acquire land for private use. I do understand that it was so people could travel faster, for a price, of course. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#t182

The Supreme Court has continued to back the rights of states to make their own definitions of public use. As early as1832, the Supreme Court allowed for the exercise of eminent domain to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and thereby flooding his neighbors’ property rendering it useless. The court said that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can simply mean a public benefit. (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2920831.html)

It wasn’t until the addition of the14th Amendment to the Constitution that Federal government and Supreme Court had any role in ensuring that States paid just compensation.(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html
Here is another case, Clark vs. Nash (1905), that allowed a farmer to build an irrigation ditch, taking property owned by another farmer. This was deemed a public use even though the water from the ditch was used entirely by the one farmer.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take nonblighted private property by eminent domain, and then sell the property to a private developer. Some states have enacted legislation to restrict a state's own power of eminent domain. Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock)(2004)[1], and Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney)(2006) have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

On 23 June, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President Bush issued an executive order (13406, 71 F R 36973) stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." This limits the use of eminent domain by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken." (Dana Berliner, Opening the Floodgates; Eminent Domain Abuse in a Post-Kelo World, Institute for Justice, June 2006.)
Unfortunately, this executive order has yet to be enforce, and many homes and businesses are still being acquired through the exercise of eminent domain as defined by the Supreme Court in Kelo case.

Here are a couple of websites for you if you want to take a look at some property rights issues taking place around the country:
http://www.emdo.blogspot.com/ Eminent Domain Watch
http://www.proprights.com/ Coalition for Property Rights

You know, King George III hated by the colonist for his abuse of their personal rights including, but not limited to, rights to ownership of personal property. The II Amendment gives American citizens the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms to prevent the government from abusing those same rights.

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. " - Samuel Adams

“Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property.” - Thomas Paine

Citizen Action

2008-02-28T12:45:00.000-08:00

When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.
— Pastor Martin Niemoller, Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
- Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
- Thomas Jefferson

...it becomes necessary...

2008-02-28T08:57:00.000-08:00

Have you herd of The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? Have you heard about the House Hate-Crimes Bill H.R. 1592 that makes "percieved" hate speach a crime?
It is unfortunate that the following words of the Declaration of Independence are so unrecognized by most Americans and yet now, mabey more than ever, are they needed.

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

What will it take to cause me n to once again rise against their rulers? Should this country allow itself to waste away until it is to late to recognize the call for action has fo so long been crying out for an answer from just men?

Falling Freedom

2007-10-12T02:02:00.000-07:00

American politicians are blueprints for building stupid. I keep hearing them talk in hopes that one of them might say something inteligent, even if by accident. At a time when there are hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Marines engaged in a "War on Terror", we have an assembly of men and women in power that should be charged with deriliction of duty and sentenced to prison. If you think I am just ranting and raving you should consider the following as an explenation.

I am an infantryman in the US armed forces ( for real, I am not making this up). If I had my platoon defending a piece of ground and we were to be attacked from within our perimeter, the first thing that I would be obligated to do, as the leader, would be to secure my perimeter in order to prevent another attack from within. This is one of the most basic fundemental doctrines of warefare there is. If I failed to do this and thereby left my men and territory open for attack I would be in violation of the special trust and confidense that has been bestowed upon me to wage an effective war. On top of that, I would be derilect in my duty to protect my men and ensure that our mission of defense and security is accomplished.
Knowing this, is there anyone out there who might happen to think that it is necessary to secure the boarders?
Lets go a bit further. Who is upset with Iran for helping the insurgency in Iraq to kill US soldiers? You should be upset with the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces for not letting the troops secure the Iraq boarder. The US military could put an end to all this in a month or two but there is some entity of influence out there that does not want it to end. You cannot tell me that a group of people wearing skirts and sandal are winning a war against the most advanced military the world has ever seen. If nothing else, lets bomb them back to second century persia, after all, that is how most of them perfere to live anyhow.
I just attended the memorial service of two of my brothers in arms who were killed in Iraq, and what for? The people who send us over there to fight won't even let us fight. These two men died for some jerks political leverage, regardless of the fact that he had to create a widow, three fatherless children and deprive two sets of parents of their sons. When will we say enough is enough and limit the power of our elected officials? Unfortunatley, I believe that we are seeing a machine run full throttle and it is to late to try and stop it. Something bad, really, really bad is going to happen, I'm afraid, but by then it will be to late to try to take control of our country. People will have to loose freedom and our leaders will gain more power before the masses even realize what is going on.

Measureing Hate Crimes

2007-09-26T15:27:00.001-07:00

Well the Universities newspaper staff did it again and I’m not sure how long I will be able to muster up any faith for the future of America. It gets harder everyday to think that these cloud hopping flower sniffing hippy wannabes are going to actually have an influence over the younger generations. For instance, a student on staff at the paper writes that the Jena Six story is evidence of just how alive and well racism is in America and that the white boys should be charged and punished for hate crimes because they threw a few nooses over a tree limb to intimidate the six black students. Hey, I don’t claim to know all the details and maybe the whole thing is just as bad as some say it is but let’s come down to earth and for just a moment, take a deep breath of highly toxic green house gasses, and try to appreciate something called LOGIC.
What is a hate crime? Current Federal legislation defines a crime as a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, religion, national origin, or color as per the hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. Let me insert here that there must be a crime involved and putting nooses in trees is not now nor has it ever been a crime. Therefor, the white kids cannot be charged with a hate crime, just stupidity. There is also current legislation on the House floor that seeks to identify hate crimes with “domestic terrorist”. Do you know what this means? It means that the courts can trump charges simply by convincing the jury that your crime was motivated by some kind of bitterness, animosity, hate, contempt, etc… But here is the real kicker, there is no possible way for any person to measure the amount of mean thoughts that another person has. It is a complete farce. A crime should be punished because of the actions taken to break the law, not because of some perceived dark motivation. This is what some call elastic legislation, anyone can bend and stretch the hate crimes law in order wrap it around anything they want. Before to long, if you speak out against groups that you don’t like, you might very well be committing a hate crime and then its off to your trial. Don’t believe me?
Dr. Jack McDevitt, a criminologist, stated, "Hate crimes are message crimes. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome."
"We must send a clear and strong message to all who would commit crimes of hate: it is wrong, it is illegal, and we will catch you and punish you to the full force of our laws." – Al Gore

Absolute Truth?/!

2007-09-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

I attend a Univeristy in Saint Louis (I won't say which one) and every now and then I will pick up the schools newspaper in hopes of finding just one inteligent thought just so I don't loose complete faith in Americas education system. I never do find such a thought unless it is printed in the "letters to the editor" section but even then it is always followed by some sort of rediculous attempt by the paper staff to make the author seem ignorant. The following is a response to an article in which the author claims there are no absolutes in ANYTHING, specifically morality. Here is my response (it was not published):I just read **** ******'s article"Just Do The Right Thing" and thought that before anyone comes to the conclusion that there are no absolutes with respect to right and wrong, they should take a few things into consideration. First of all, there are things that are never right and are always absolutely wrong, such as rape. According to ******, there are no absolutes; whether rape is right or wrong would be relative to the rapist. Lets stretch the imagination and say that a rape occurs as a desire to procreate on the part of the rapist. Does this mean that it might not really be wrong if the perpetrator thinks he needs to violate someone? After all, ****** claims that "truth appears to be malleable to differing perspectives" and so then "there are no absolutes". I disagree, I believe that there are absolutes regarding right and wrong and no matter how far anyone can stretch their imagination or the circumstances of a situation, some things remain constant such as rape, it is absolutely wrong.
Did it ever ocurr to you that there are absolutes in everthing in the known universe? Everything is held together by absolute truths such as mathematical absolutes, grammatical absolutes, physical absolutes, astronomical absolutes, chemical absolutes, and the list goes on and on and on. So then, if morality has no absolutes then it is the only thing in the universe without truth and therefore does not exist, but, if you believe that it is an absolute truth that rape is absolutely wrong, welcome to my point of view because, if there is one moral absolute, there just might be several. Whether or not we choose to live as moral as possible is on us.
Not only is the rapist wrong, but furthermore, it was absolutely wrong for terrorist to hijack four civilian aircraft an fly them into the WTC towers in New York and the Pentagon. Who knows what the fourth aircraft would have hit had it not been for the brave Americans on board who, in my opinion, did the absolute right thing by fighting back. ***** was wrong when he stated that Al Qaeda believes they are saving the world from America. The truth is that they believe they are saving the Muslim world from the non-Muslim world, targeting even Muslims who do not believe the same way they do. Doesn't anybody remember the bombings in England, Bali, Spain, the Philippines, Lebanon (2005), even Muslim Mosques in Iraq and the list goes on and on and on. The point is that there are absolutes, right and wrong. Has anyone ever got their exam back only to find that the answere they sincerily believed to be right was actually wrong? Try the "no absolute" philosophy on your professor then time them to see how long it takes before they burst into uncontrollable laughter. No matter how sincere you are about doing something you think is right, you might just be sincerliy wrong.
In ****** last couple of sentences, he said "claiming eternal damnation on those that are just trying to get through life on their own moral code is just as damaging as AK-47 toting radicals". ****** uses a gramatical absolute statement to say something that is absolutley wrong. By this statement we are told that Protestants, Baptist, Jews or whoever else claims that some people go to heaven and others go to hell is just as damaging as an "AK-47 toting radical" (by this I can only assume he means Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or other such ruthless cowardly killers of the innocent). This is not true, in fact it is absolutley false. If Al Qaeda only made claims and accusations, then who would care? The only reason they are damaging is because THEY INTEND TO KILL US ALL! If you really don't think there is a difference, then the next time a person talks to you about their faith or tells you what they believe about God and the after life, call up the Department of Defense and tell them to send in the Marines and to elevate the terror level to red. Once again, time them to see how long it takes before they begin to laugh uncontrollably.

2007-09-26T01:20:00.001-07:00

Americas Violent Addiction

2007-09-25T22:36:00.000-07:00

It all over the news paper; abuse, senseless killings, and any other sort of violent crime you can think of. You can tell by reading the news paper that violent crime doesn’t just occur as “isolated incidents” like some might have you to believe. It is the product of a movement that the world has ushered in for the sole purpose of entertainment. If anyone reading this thinks that I am just blowing things out of proportion, go down to you local Blockbuster and see which new release is out of stock and then count the names on the waiting list. Movies like Natural Born Killers or any one of the Saw films is just one rung on the ladder of entertainment through violence. Is there anyone out there who would seriously argue that the producers of Saw I thought for a minute that Saw II would be more entertaining if it had just a little less blood and guts? Of course not, and that’s how Hollywood thinks. It works the same way with drug pushers all around the world and it has a lot to do with the economics of supply and demand. Movies have a shock factor and in order for filmmakers to turn a profit, it is important for the shock factor to keep going up. Whether they will admit it or not, they must feed the “addiction” in order to create demand for their product. You see, in order to make a profit from your supply, it is not good enough to keep the status quo. What you must do is create a demand for your product, constantly. Who feels like watching Bambi after watching Rambo? NOBODY! And honestly, the only thing I want to watch after Bambi is a Monster Bucks hunting video but that’s the way our minds work, we want to experience a higher shock value. Cigarette smokers will tell you, after there first smoke, they found themselves smoking more often and over time most begin to buy cigarettes by the carton. Why? Because they are under the control of addiction. The tobacco companies are so confident in their ability to addict that, if you haven’t noticed, every anti-tobacco commercial on TV, the radio, and the internet is produce by Phillip Morris, one of the largest tobacco companies there is. That’s down right arrogant, and people are stupid. It’s the same with Hollywood, Americans are so addicted to the entertainment of wrecked marriages, homosexuality, adultery, violence, and profanity that it helps them to feel better about living their lives on the same levels of immorality and guess who the new authority on the family is now?! That’s right, Hollywood. Most evenings you can find a commercial or two or three where an actor tells us, the American people, that it is important for us to sit around the dinner table and talk so we can build a stronger bond with the families that he works ever so hard to entertain. After all it is important to have a good dinner before the parents get a divorce, the daughter moves in with two homosexual men, the other kids fight off their problems with drugs and don't forget the teenage pregnancy issue of which every network has its own stars.
Is this for real? Is it really that bad? Not to me because, after all, I have never killed anyone and no one that I know has been killed or abused for any kind of entertainment. Maybe before we decide that it is not a call for concern we should ask somebody who has been affected. For starters, let’s go to a small town in Missouri . Sitting in the county Sherrifs jail is a boy who took a high powered deer rifle and decided to play sniper and shoot a neighbors cow. Hey, not biggest deal right? It was stupid and he should have to pay for that cow. All the kid wanted to do was experience the rush that assassin and sniper movies portray, it was a cow, not a human right? Yeah I guess you would be right if it wasn’t for the fact that with in a few weeks, he saw the farmer digging a hole in his field, started to fantasize about you know what, grabbed his rifle, crawled under some trees, took his time aiming in, watched the farmer for a few minutes through his scope, and then decided that it would be entertaining to place a well aimed shot through his neck and end his life, which he did. Now, that boy is in jail and our ever so intelligent government has deemed that it would be cruel to not let him watch TV. Can our leaders and politicians get any dumber? I’m sure your thinking to yourself that that is a stupid question and you would be right. There is a 15 year old boy in custody of the St. Louis PD probably watching TV right now. Guess why he’s in jail. I’ll tell you. It is because on the night of August 17th, 2007, he just had it in his mind that he wanted to kill a police officer, any police officer, and he did kill one, a 22 year old officer named Norville Brown. Officer Brown had not even been on the force for a year. He joined the police department in order to help clean up his old neighborhood, the same neighborhood where he was murdered.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that violence is a fact of life but I also believe that it is not to be used to feed an addiction for the purpose of entertainment. I have several guns because I enjoy hunting, I enjoy boxing and grappling and any other type of combat sport, but there is a difference because that entertainment value is based on levels of competition in which each competitor trains to win the title the next time around. There is a difference between entertainment derived from watching a competition between two men in a boxing match or fencing in the summer Olympics and entertainment derived from watching a man slice through a girls face while she is tied to a chair before putting a gun in her mouth and pulling the trigger. Don’t get mad at me for being to graphic, it is available from your local DVD rental store for your kids to get this weekend while you are out of town on a romantic getaway with your spouse, and if they do get it, they will watch all eight minutes of gore unfold as the victim screams louder and louder before passing out and being executed. Enjoy your trip.
This is where something very important comes into play, PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY. Unfortunatly, personal responsibility is often thrown to the curb alongside COMMON SENSE. Than is exactly how it works, amazingly enough. Without the guiding light of common sense, personal responsibility is useless and is therefore discarded as though it were cluter, just laying around in our way. Is there any hope for this present world? Other than another Great Awakening, no. Sorry to be blunt but there isn't unless it is a matter of survival. So then, until we are spiritualy revived or fighting for our survival we will, as a nation and global comunity, continue down this sipery slope of stupidity and like crack addicts, we will continue to feed our addictions to various types of entertainment and we will constantly find that our faults are someone elses faults until we ultimately push ourselves beyond any hope of return to the high ground.