U.N. Celebrates Obama Re-election by Pushing Global Gun Control, says Second Amendment Foundation

Second Amendment Foundation

Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community.

The vote came at the U.N. General Assembly’s meeting of the First Committee on Disarmament at the world organization’s headquarters in New York City.

“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning, we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”

SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel, who has been back and forth to the United Nations over this proposal, said the fight is not finished. The measure will be considered for finalization in March 2013.

“We will continue to monitor this issue and oppose any effort to enforce a global gun control measure,” she stated.

Amnesty International issued a statement Wednesday lauding passage of the resolution, saying the treaty will protect human rights.

“The right of self-defense is a human right,” Gottlieb countered, “and in this country, the Second Amendment protects that right.

“Just days ago as he campaigned for re-election,” he concluded, “Barack Obama told his supporters that voting is the ‘best revenge.’ I guess now we know what he was talking about. The revenge he seeks is against American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Obama: Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list

Three years ago, President Obama was the recipient of the highly prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. At the time, even the president was taken back by the award and he admitted himself that the decision was a controversial one, but since he won the award President Obama has continued to expand the drone program in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan and under his watch over 1,300 civilians have been killed. Colonel Morris Davis joins us with more on whether Obama is really promoting peace.



Obama questioned about Secret Kill List (BEN SWANN - REALITY CHECK)




Obama Rep. Schultz on The NDAA and Secret Kill List

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

12/31/2011

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.  The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.  In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.  

We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today.  Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.

Source:  www.aclu.org

The Internet Must Remain Free

The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”

The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web1

A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.

“The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

“Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.”

The report continued by saying, “Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“‘Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,’ Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

“While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web2

Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman’s bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.

My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free–absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.

I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman’s bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of “objectionable content” includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman’s bill does.

The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either. And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation’s major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.

Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR’s plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you’ve learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you’ve learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet–not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.

It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots’ version of the colonists’ Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America’s founding. And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.

What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own “piece of the pie.” Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, “Jump!” they ask, “How high?” Then–like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.–they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, “America: the land of the free!” As if they are blameless in freedom’s demise.

Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.


Source

We are Change Plans End the Fed protest on Independence Day

We Are Change groups from MD, VA and DC have joined together to hold an End The Fed protest in Washington DC in honor of Independence Day. The event will be on Saturday, July 3rd and the permits are already in. We Are Change groups have been putting up banners in the local area for the coming event. It is important not to lose momentum and to continue the energy that has sprung up around the notion of abolishing the Federal Reserve. With more and more public awareness as to what the Federal Reserve Bank is and how it operates, common people from the left or right have been getting behind this revolutionary idea.

Please come and join We Are Change in Washington D.C. this July 3, 2010 to take a stand for liberty. If you cannot make it to D.C. and would like to organize your own Federal Reserve protest, contact your local End the Fed group in your area by going to http://endthefedusa.ning.com/ or your local Campaign for Liberty chapter at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Don’t let up, don’t back down, don’t allow the children of the future to wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. For more information visit http://www.wearechangedc.org/.

The Federal Reserve is a cartel of private banking corporations which lend money to the United States. It is touted as if it were a Government Agency. IT IS NOT. The Federal Reserve Bank, through its inflation of the money supply and the distortion of free markets resulting from its intervention, is responsible for the current financial and economic crisis. The current round of “bailouts” and federal government nationalization of large segments of the financial sector further inflates the US dollar and disrupts the proper functioning of the markets and will ultimately serve to plunge the nation into an even more severe crisis, quite possibly even into a serious depression. Our goal is to educate Americans so we can have a sound monetary system in this country, and not be held at gunpoint by a private banking cartel who pretends to be a government entity.

Donovan Hubbard WAC-VA
Heidi Humphrey WAC-MD


Source

What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?

Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.

Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)

Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.

Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:

“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)

Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.

To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!

Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!

When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.

Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?

Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!

Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.

Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”

The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)

Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)

Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.

As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”

Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.

Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.

As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.

On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.

As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!


Source

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law

NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) -- Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona's new immigration law indicated.

The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 1,002 American adults asked respondents if they'd want four guidelines in Arizona's immigration law enacted in their own state.

The law, the nation's toughest, seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants and gives police broad powers to stop people on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they'd support requiring their own police to determine people's U.S. status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn't prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

Respondents in the U.S. Midwest were more likely than those in other areas to express a desire to deport illegal immigrants, the poll found

The online poll, taken April 22-23, has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.


Source

Nevadans are free to don their arms in the open

Even though it’s legal, not everyone comfortable with gun-wearing citizens, especially some police

Just about everybody on the Metro Police force has heard of Tim Farrell, and he sometimes gets mistaken for a law enforcement officer.

Farrell is simply a 29-year-old wireless Internet engineer — and a gun rights crusader. He is one of what appears to be a growing number of people taking up the “open-carry” cause, advocating a constitutional right to openly carry firearms.

“The open-carry movement has gained momentum over the last four or five years because people are waking up to their rights,” Farrell says. “I don’t need a permit to exercise free speech. I don’t need a permit to be tried by a jury if I’m accused of a crime, so why do I need a permit to carry a gun if I have a constitutional right to carry a gun?”

Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms.

One was Dave Stilwell, a 44-year-old truck driver from Las Vegas who always carries a gun for self-defense.

He says he was jogging back from a garage sale near his house one morning last May with his .45-caliber pistol on his hip. Around Jones Boulevard and Cheyenne Avenue, a Metro patrol car rolled up slowly behind him.

A shopkeeper had called police after seeing the gun, said the officer, who took the pistol from Stilwell, removed the magazine and the bullet in the chamber, checked the ID number on the gun and then returned the weapon and ammunition to Stilwell before driving away.

“I just told the officer I was exercising my body and my rights,” he said. “In retrospect, I didn’t think that was such a big deal.

“I knew I would have contact with police at some point. Even though it’s my legal right to carry a gun, there’s a lot of propaganda out there, a lot of inaccurate information. When I started to open carry a couple years ago, I would have guessed that 90 out of 100 people didn’t think it was legal.”

So have open-carry advocates latched onto the Tea Party movement? Stilwell said that although he attended with gun in holster, his reason for going was to join others who care about their rights.

“Rights are becoming more prevalent because people feel like their backs are against the wall because of the government,” he says.

Farrell is not a Tea Partyer. He describes himself as libertarian and pro-choice on abortion. He and Stilwell are on the same page when it comes to guns, however.

Like Stilwell, Farrell says he carries his handgun wherever he goes, for self-defense. He says he has never been kicked out of a casino or other place of business but finds himself educating business owners who question why he is so brazenly armed.

Farrell says he has worn his gun many times into his neighborhood restaurant and bar near the U.S. 95-Summerlin Parkway interchange. But as he walks in one recent afternoon, a bartender who spots the gun is taken aback. She says the only pistol-packing customers she has served are undercover cops.

“So what I should have done is asked to see your concealed weapons permit because that is something that’s mandatory,” she tells Farrell.

“I don’t have a concealed gun on me,” he replies. “I do have a concealed-weapons permit but you do not need a concealed-weapons permit for a nonconcealed gun.”

“I mean, a regular permit just to carry the gun around,” she says.

“There is no permit in this state for that,” he tells her.

“It used to be years ago you would have to give your weapons to the bartender,” she says.

“This bar is private property, obviously,” Farrell says. “You can set whatever rules you want.”

“You can pull that out on me and shoot,” she tells him. “You see what I’m saying?”

“Well, of course. And that’s one of the reasons to carry openly, is for self-defense but it’s also to educate others as well that, one, it’s not against the law and, two, that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Certainly if there was a bad guy coming to rob you, he wouldn’t let you see the gun until it was too late.”

With that, the bartender goes about her business.

It undoubtedly helps that Farrell is not one of those guys who wears head-to-toe camouflage gear. He wears polo shirts and bluejeans.

He doesn’t have a gun collection. “I have a handgun and a shotgun, that’s all, just to keep me and my wife safe.”

When Farrell read Stilwell’s blog post about how he had been stopped by police, Farrell researched state and local laws, as well as police regulations and then conducted an experiment.

On the night of June 24, he holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

“I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”

Based on complaints from Farrell, Metro’s Citizen Review Board and internal affairs division each launched investigations into his case last summer. Although the officers involved were cleared of wrongdoing, Metro’s force had to take a refresher course on how to handle individuals who openly carry firearms.

Last month, a five-member panel of the Citizen Review Board found that police had complied with department policy related to the incident but that neither the policy nor police training at the time Farrell was stopped was specific enough on “open carry” stops. The board concluded that the police action was “the result of ambiguity among officers on how to handle an individual asserting his Second Amendment right to openly carry a gun in public.”

While cadets are trained in Metro’s police academy on how to handle constitutional rights, including those involving gun possession, the agency’s thick policy and procedure manual is silent on open-carry issues.

Andrea Beckman, the Citizen Review Board’s executive director, says Farrell’s case “brought to light the significance of how to train police officers on open carry.” Farrell’s case, in fact, was the first open-carry dispute heard by the board, and his name is now familiar throughout Metro.

A little more than a month after “the Farrell incident,” Metro’s 3,000 officers took their refresher course.

“When we don’t respond to something the way we should have, we’re quick to correct ourselves,” Metro Patrol Division Deputy Chief Kathleen O’Connor says.

The review board noted, however, that one police sergeant who confronted Farrell needed more training because it was clear from the sergeant’s testimony that if he had been given a test after the refresher, he would have failed.

The open-carry issue is tricky for police, O’Connor says, because officers are caught between preserving an individual’s open-carry rights and protecting the public from potential harm.

Of course, some police officers are not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea of lots of citizens walking around with guns on their hips. Opponents say the more guns that are being toted around, the greater the possibility that a bystander could be hit by a stray bullet, the more likely it is that a criminal will get a citizen’s gun and use it for no good. Even some Second Amendment advocates acknowledge that an individual who openly wears a gun in a crowded public area might result in the same reaction that a false warning of fire can in a crowded theater.

There are exceptions to Nevada’s open-carry rights. Among them is a state law that prohibits average citizens from carrying firearms on college campuses, at public or private schools and at day care centers without written permission from the heads of those facilities. An individual also cannot legally possess a firearm while intoxicated.

Local laws prohibit possession of guns in Clark County parks or in vehicles within North Las Vegas city limits.

Violation of the North Las Vegas “deadly weapons” ordinance, on the books since 1978, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance provides exceptions to the weapons ban as it pertains to “ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.” The ordinance has only been enforced in conjunction with traffic stops for other violations, such as speeding or suspicion of criminal activity, police say.

It also appears to violate the state law that gives the Legislature, not local governments, the power to regulate firearms, UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Thomas McAffee says.

“The state statute does permit some older local registration requirements, but the city ordinance here is a complete ban on possession in a motor vehicle, which seems to clearly fall within the scope of the state reservation of authority,” McAffee says.

Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas’ chief criminal attorney, said his interpretation is that the ordinance is legal because when the state law was last revised in 2007, the intent was to preserve pre-1989 local gun laws that had nothing to do with firearm registration. He said there have been dozens of cases in recent years where convictions that included violation of that ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single appeal of the weapons ban made to District Court in Clark County.

“The intent was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV,” Davidson says.

Farrell and other local open-carry advocates counter that North Las Vegas’ law is unconstitutional on its face, no matter the intent.

These advocates staged peaceful protests in North Las Vegas last year — picking up litter “to show we’re just regular guys” — and in January in front of Bally’s on the Strip, where numerous tourists had their pictures taken with Farrell and roughly 20 of his fellow gun-toters.

Farrell had given a Metro watch commander a courtesy heads-up before his armed group headed down to the Strip. The police commander thanked him for the warning, acknowledged the group’s right to assemble, but also pleaded with Farrell to cancel his plans.

The tourists who took pictures, however, encouraged Farrell and his posse to keep standing up for the Constitution, he says, and that’s what he intends to do.


Source

The States, and 10th Amendment, will Thwart Obamacare

As I pointed out in an article here a few months ago, there is a specific “lawful” procedure, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service, and peacefully stop unlawful federal mandates including this Obama-care travesty. I describe this procedure much like the final moves in a chess game. The states must pass the 10th Amendment Resolution first, which demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of any federal mandate. This resolution puts the federal government on notice that the states are perfectly capable of understanding the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and know exactly what they mean. This informs the federal government that it’s King in check. Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can continue their little game… or they can resign it.

If the FEDS choose to continue, then the states independently put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act which spells out the specific mandate or mandates that they wish to address, or can retroactively review all federal mandates at will. This bill when enacted into law within the state, emphasizes with real law that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. This power was reserved by the states in the 10th Amendment and gains its power by the rights reserved to the People in the 9th Amendment. Thus, without state review affirming a federal mandate, it cannot become law within the state.

In effect this shuts down federal power within the state over and above that which is spelled out in the Organic Constitution, or that the state determines by law, to be within the bounds of the Constitution. This opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted “law,” including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect… “Checkmate!” The FED’s game for total control is lost. All it takes is 38 states working Independently in communication with other states to effectively shut down the foreign usurpers, “LAWFULLY.”

Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone with some communication between states of course, but not by some kind of convention. I’m sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded in the confusion after the civil war and the Lincoln assassination, from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue federal government to exploit the states and the people to seat itself in primacy in 1871. As a result over time their plan has rendered us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.

The Bill of Rights begins at the 1st Amendment with the words, “Congress shall make no law…” By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment… amendments begin with the words, “Congress shall have power…”

Think about it…

As has been correctly pointed out, there is latent secession-ism, in some of these resolutions. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group. They have their roots clear back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any possible lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power. Their goal is twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession, then what they are really saying is they are for Vassal State Globalism, pure and simple, whether they know it or not.

Adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, ( the only time the Constitution was fully ratified, I might add ), as being the basis of, and for this inquiry via the 10th Amendment, the enacted law needed to accomplish this. This is why it is necessary and essential that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL BE, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and the Law empowering these Constitutional complaints against the federal government. In so doing, the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement remains lawful and true. Remember, the present federal government is NOT our constitutional government, it is a corporatist foreign power bent upon complete take over. Because of this, any talk of secession, the breaking of the Constitutional Agreement, or the breaking away of any state from the constitutional union, would spell disaster!


Source

Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced

Introduced in the State Senates of both Colorado and South Dakota last week is a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed, the bill would make state law that “any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state and that remains within the borders of the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts already passed in Montana and Tennessee, and currently introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the original bill that was introduced in Montana, “It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and maybe elsewhere”

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 89 (SB89) was introduced by State Senator Rhoden, and has 22 Senate co-sponsors and 44 House co-sponsors.

Colorado’s Senate Bill 092 (SB10-092) was introduced by State Senator Schultheis and has 9 Senate co-sponsors and 7 House co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

UPDATE, 01-26-10

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

In similar proposals, some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too. Other legislators have already introduced what’s known as the “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act” which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C. Click here to read more about this proposal.

Even without such specific penalties listed, I see this as an important step in the right direction.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.


Source

EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate

Excerpts from the:





WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski took her battle with the Environmental Protection Agency to the floor of the Senate today, saying she was left with no choice but to fight a federal agency she believes is “contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs while millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find one.”

The Alaska Republican announced she would seek to keep the EPA from drawing up rules on greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters, such as power plants, refineries and manufacturers. Murkowski did it by filing a “disapproval resolution,” a rarely used procedural move that prohibits rules written by executive branch agencies from taking effect.

…

“If Congress allows this to happen there will be severe consequences to our economy,” Murkowski said. “Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable.”

She was immediately countered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the committee that has done the most work on climate-change legislation: the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Murkowski’s disapproval resolution would essentially throw out the process by which the EPA found that greenhouse gases endanger public health, Boxer said.

She called Murkowski’s resolution an “unprecedented move to overturn a health finding by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests.”

…

Murkowski has as co-sponsors 38 fellow senators, including three Democrats: Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Her move has prompted an aggressive response by environmentalists, who launched a radio and television advertising campaign in Anchorage and Washington, D.C., that focused on the role two industry lobbyists had in writing Murkowski’s original proposal last fall.

…

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also criticized Murkowski’s effort, saying recently during an event in New York sponsored by the Geothermal Energy Association that Murkowski’s proposal was “misguided.”

Source

The Constitution Will Never Enforce Itself

The following was a prepared speech for an event in Greeley, CO on 12-22-09

I want to talk with you about the State Sovereignty movement and Nullification. Our Founding Fathers secured for us a land of freedom and opportunity that has been the envy of the entire world, and sought to protect those freedoms and that opportunity with our Constitution. But the Constitution is not in itself the protection, only the means for us to protect ourselves.

It is quite clear the federal government is completely out of touch with those they are supposed to be serving. Yet the Constitution provides for us, the inheritors of the greatest system of government the world has ever known, a way to defend our rights. This is the tenth amendment! And while Amendment Ten has not stopped the power grab from all branches of the federal government, it does provide both the framework and the justification for “we the people” to maintain and defend our share of the power in our political system.

First you have to understand that power is a finite resource, meaning that as one group gains power, it must come from another group. In this case us. Make no mistake about it; a lot of laws passed in the last ninety six years have been about power. More to the point, it is about power that is going from “we the people”, to the political class in Washington D.C

So it is not enough to be against Nationalized Healthcare,

It is not enough to be against Cap and Trade,

It is not enough to be against the bailouts, against TARP, against the Patriot ACT, against No Child Left behind!

It is not enough to oppose activist judges legislating from the bench, or executive orders, or bureaucratic regulations or any other “laws” without the understanding that these “laws” were NOT passed in a legislative branch of Government as laid out in the Constitution. You must see that it is really about power, and you have to begin to recognize that this power has been taken from “we the people”!

How? Through apathy, indifference, and willful ignorance, we have let it be taken.

This brings us to the tenth amendment and Nullification.

Nullification is the idea that the people of the several States entered into a contract called the Constitution where the Federal Government was granted specific powers, most of which are found in Article One Section Eight. And that the states had not only a right, but an obligation to interpose or nullify laws passed by the Federal Government that go beyond those powers, and infringe upon the rights of “we the people”. This idea is clearly spelled out by the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is common sense that the states must have some recourse available to them should the Federal Government overreach its powers, and infringe upon the liberty of “we the people”. Does this sound crazy? Some notes on this idea from the founders before the Constitution was ratified.

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers#28

“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.” James Madison Federalist Papers# 39

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison Federalist Papers#45

“Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” James Madison Federalist Papers# 51

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

The Federalist papers were never meant to define the Constitution; but to sell it to the general public to get it ratified. You see, the former colonist were not eager to trade a despotic centralized Government across the ocean for one on their own continent. Proof is self evident by the fact that they had to promise that a bill of rights would be added to get it ratified.

The Doctrine of Nullification was first introduced in 1798 in the Kentucky Resolution, written by Thomas Jefferson, and the Virginia resolution, written by James Madison. These were in response to the “Alien” and Sedition acts”. I urge you to read these resolutions, and I brought a few copies of the pocket constitution put out by the Campaign for Liberty which includes both. And in case you didn’t know, the “Alien and Sedition” acts among other things made it illegal to criticize the Government. This doctrine was later adopted by Massachusetts and Wisconsin to nullify parts of the “Fugitive Slave ACT”, and by South Carolina to nullify a tariff they believed harmful to their state economy, and by the New England states in response to embargos.

‘What about the “Supremacy clause”?’ The one that states the Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land.

1997 “Mack/Printz vs. the US” Where two County Sheriffs sued the Federal Government over the Brady Bill. This was a law that forced county Sheriffs to run background check on their citizens who bought handguns at the expense of the county, and any sheriff who did not comply with this law would be subject to arrest. These sheriffs argued that this law violated the tenth amendment. This case was heard and ultimately won before the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia writes for the majority, “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.” And in a direct challenge to this interpretation of the Supremacy clause, he writes, “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” he also states “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

But there is really a supremacy clause, and it states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This clearly states the Constitution and laws that carry out, follow and continue the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land.

How about the Real ID Act, whereby the States had until May of 2008 to issue everyone of its citizens a national ID card complete with biometrics, resulting in the complete loss of privacy from the state. States who failed to comply by the deadline would see its citizens loose the ability to board an air plane or enter a federal building. It has been over a year since that deadline has passed, and I ask you, do any of you have a “real ID”? How many of you have entered a federal building or boarded an airplane in the last year? Do you know why? Because the states said NO!

Is there anyone here tonight, having heard what I have had to say about States Rights, and the Doctrine of Nullification, who believe that this is a real and viable strategy in the fight to, not only secure the freedoms we still enjoy, but to take back the power that has always been our god given natural rights?

For those of you who have answered yes, here is a strategy for how we will win!

First, we must redirect the efforts from the Federal office holders who not only have ignored us, but hold us in contempt! And direct that energy towards the State Legislators. These people live here in our communities with us and have much less insulation from “we the people”.

We must get them to introduce and pass key laws including: nullifying both a National Healthcare act and Cap and Trade, an honest money act, to protect Coloradoans from the oncoming hyper-inflation that will be the result of this out of control spending. Furthermore we should follow Tennessee, whose legislators are introducing a bill which creates an escrow account whereby legal federal taxes are collected and held by the states as protection against federal backlash against our nullification efforts.

Next we must have them introduce and pass legislation which will “build and impenetrable wall around the county sheriff and the second amendment” examples include “Sheriff First” “Extension of the Castle Doctrine” “Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking” and finally a “Firearms Freedom Act”. This is laid out in detail in an article I have printed out, and brought with me.

At some point as “we the people” work to make the Constitution relevant again, you will begin to hear the progressives and their puppets use the term “general welfare clause”

The general welfare clause has been interpreted by those favoring a strong central government to mean that as long as the law was meant to be in the “general welfare” of the union, congress has the authority to pass it. The argument against this is the Virginia plan, which was introduced by Madison at the Constitutional Convention. This plan would have created a National Government that gave the central government the authority to do anything it wanted. It is important to remember this plan was rejected by the delegation, and more importantly, it was never ratified by “we the people”.

James Madison, considered the ‘father of the Constitution’ and the author of the defeated Virginia plan, stated the following about this interpretation of the “general welfare clause”.

“Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.” Think on that a second. Now let me give you one of my favorite quotes from James Madison. “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

This should help to explain where we are today and how we got here, and hopefully what we need to do next.

Will it be easy? No. Every step of the way not only will enemies of Freedom tells us this wont work, but even our friends, who should be on our side will say it is impossible. The Central Government is too big to take on!

Will there be risk? Yes. We will be taking on the most powerful “empire” in the world today, and you can be sure that they will not give up all this power without a fight. But I ask you to consider what dangers our founding fathers faced, surely this pales in comparison.

I think Samuel Adams said it best when he said this, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better then the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”

I want to leave you all with a few closing thoughts. Remember;

It is about your future,

It is about your children’s future

It is about your grandchildren’s future,

It is about control,

It is especially about power, and finally

It is about TIME people were willing to stand up for themselves and do more then just complain to our would be masters for better treatment. And begin to assert the power that is our god given birth right as American Patriots!

Geoff Broughton [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center

Post Script: I wrote this as a speech, and most of my research was done through internet search engines. Much of the content is from Articles or Videos posted at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ I used hyper links to articles where I took information from directly, to serve as a poor mans bibliography. I would also like to recognize Kevin R.C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” , Thomas E. Woods Jr.,Phd. Author of “Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and Sheriff Richard Mack author of “County Sheriff Americas Last Hope” as books that I have read and was greatly influenced by.


Source

Tea partiers descend on Capitol Hill

The Tea Party holds no seat in Congress, but at least 10,000 of the party’s members descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against a Democratic-written health care overhaul.

A plan first hatched and heralded on FOX by iconic conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) grew over the weekend as she e-mailed with a handful of colleagues. By the time activists started arriving at the foot of the Capitol around 8:30 a.m., it was clear no Republican leader could stay away.

Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor and Conference Chairman Mike Pence all spoke.

Inside, Democrats were working to finalize a trillion-dollar health care bill that they say will deliver insurance to tens of millions of Americans who currently lack it, improve the quality of care and rein in costs both for individuals and the government.

Outside, on the grassy lawn just steps from where Barack Obama took the oath of office, an endless lineup of rank-and-file lawmakers and conservative All Stars – Bachmann, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, actor Jon Voigt and Mark Levin, author of “Liberty and Tyranny” – demanded that the health care bill be torn asunder.

“Madam Speaker, throw out this bill,” bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“Oh come on, tell them how you really feel,” Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.

“Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” the crowd replied.

“That’s exactly what you’re going to tell them,” said Bachmann, who was the clear favorite of the assembled masses.

“She has more cojones than a lot of guys,” said Barbara McGrath, who traveled from Troy, Ohio, to participate.

When she took the microphone, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) pointed to the three House office buildings across Independence Avenue from the rally.

“I invite you, when the rally's over, to travel in those halls, look at the walls, find your (member) and walk in," she said. "Let them know how you feel about this bill."

Within an hour, activists were lined up down Independence Avenue to go through the magnetometers in the lobby of the Rayburn Office Building so they could confront members and staff. Bachman told them to each take a page – or a piece of a page – from one of two copies of the bill at the podium and ask a member to explain the text to them.

Bachmann’s office and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district office were surrounded by the Tea Partiers shortly after the rally ended, and the floor outside Pelosi’s office was covered in pages of the bill.

It may well be that the frustration expressed by activists – who came from Bluffton, S.C., Des Moines, Iowa, Dorris, Calif., and many other cities and towns across the country – far outstrips their influence over the final outcome of the legislation.

But they said it was important to let their elected officials how they felt.

Mary Beth Bishop of Monument, Colo., spent $500 on a plane ticket to lodge her complaints about the growth of government.

"We need to show up and uphold the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't written on toilet paper."

Boehner waved a copy of the Constitution while he quoted the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” he said.

Many in the crowd held signs demeaning President Obama – and their feelings were echoed on stage.

Voight invoked Obama’s now-strained relationship with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his speech, saying “the lies and deception are blatant... Maybe it was the 20 years of sub-conscious programming by Rev. Wright to damn America."

One sign in the crowd read: "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds," a reference to theories of Jewish world dominance centered around the prominent Jewish family of Rothschilds.

Another target of the Tea Party protesters’ ire was Pelosi.

“Nan-cy! Nan-cy!,” the crowd jeeringly chanted, as if taunting a particularly hated member of the opposing team at a baseball game.

Pelosi obviously wasn’t going to address the crowd, and her spokesman said Democrats were busy trying to pass a bill while Republicans played the role of obstructionists.

“While the Party of No holds a rally to once again say no, our health insurance reform bill was endorsed by the AARP and the AMA, and on the House floor, we are debating bipartisan legislation to create jobs by extending unemployment benefits and extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. “We are continuing with our job or passing legislation that will help the American people.”

Speaking on conservative talker Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning, Bachmann encouraged people listening to show up on the West Front steps, but she said they should show up with “cameras” instead of “pitchforks.”

She got her wish: Photographs not firebombs.

Long before the event kicked off at noon, lawmakers visited one-by-one with their supporters.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), wearing a jacket covered in pins and stickers reading “Yes! Freedom!,” autographed tea bags.

“This is too great,” King said as he shook hands across a wall like a presidential contender.

For more on the Tea Party, see The Arena.


Source

The Oath Keepers

Learn about how the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and not follow unlawful orders to oppress the American people.

Source

These Are Not Negotiable

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured “patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred–that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be “thrown off.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom, becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we will do–at all costs.

The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by another’s leave. This we will not do.

The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family. This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history, most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children. Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts, the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the uniform of a tyrant.

The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45; John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today. They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care (and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state of war.

The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” But cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”


Source