Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
From Rep Billy Long on the ATT Treaty
July 23, 2012
Dear Mr. Booth,
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Arms Trade Treaty.
The Arms Trade Treaty is a proposed international treaty that would regulate global trade in conventional arms sales. While the treaty is still under discussion, the purpose of the treaty is to prevent the transfer of weapons, including light arms, into the hands of terrorists, human rights abusers and other authoritarian regimes around the world. To accomplish this purpose the treaty would incorporate new controls over the transfer of finished weapons, weapon components, ammunition and other military-grade equipment. In October 2009, President Obama reversed the Bush administration's decision to oppose the treaty and endorsed a robust Arms Trade Treaty. In order for a treaty to become binding to the United States, it must first be ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.
The Arms Trade Treaty has been presented as a means to control the flow of international weapons into repressive nations; however, until the treaty has been concluded and presented to the U.S. Senate we will not know all of the proposal's details. While the House of Representatives does not directly participate in the treaty-approval process, I believe my colleagues in the Senate will reject any treaty which violates our Second Amendment right to bear arms or conflicts with America's national security interests. I do not believe that the United States should join any additional arms control treaties. Unfortunately, such treaties often restrict the transfer of weapons into the hands of American allies while America's enemies import weapons from nations which refuse to honestly abide by treaty restrictions. Additionally, America is a major exporter of weapons, which supports thousands of American jobs. Overly-restrictive language could interfere with the ability of our businesses to ship their products to legitimate overseas buyers.
For these reasons I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3594, the Second Amendment Protection Act. This bill would prohibit the United States from providing any funding to the United Nations during any fiscal year unless the President certifies that the United Nations has not taken any action which would infringe on American's Constitutional rights. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 5846, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act. This bill would prohibit the use of any taxpayer dollars for the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations or any other United Nations action which could infringe on American's Second Amendment rights. The measure would also prevent the use of funds to enter into any agreement that would create new regulations, controls or prohibitions against the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of light arms manufactured in the United States. H.R. 3594 and H.R 5846 have been referred to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs for further legislative action.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh District and the future interests of the nation.
For additional information regarding current legislation, my representation of the Seventh District, and to sign up to receive my monthly newsletter, I invite you to visit my website at http://long.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Billy Long
Member of Congress
I am very pleased our congressman recognizes and is attempting to protect our 2nd amendment rights but also recognize
it is up to the US Senate (2/3) to ratify or not this treaty. Senator Blunt has not yet answered my query but I expect he will
also oppose this treaty whereas the DemAss McCaskill will vote to ratify as she is consistently anti-constitutional rights and
anti-gun supporting restrictions of sales and ownership.
Technorati Tags: congress,senate,congressman,gun laws,gun ban,2nd amendment,united nations,unpopular
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
ATT, The UN Gun Control Treaty
Thanks for the quick answer, glad to read that and know the senate ratifies.
Subject: RE: ATT
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:14:52 -0500
Congressman Akin cosponsored HR 5846 (The 2nd Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012): To prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens. You can find information on the bill here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5846
The bill is very simple and is only two pages long. Conservatives in the House are doing everything they can to prevent a UN Weapons Treaty. However, treaties are ratified in the US Senate, not the US House.
Regards,
Peter Williams
Field Director
Todd Akin for Senate
PO Box 31222
St. Louis, MO 63131
www.akin.org
(636) 207-7986 office
Subject: FW: ATT
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:51:59 -0500
Fact: US DEM Senators (nor many Reps.) have not backed off the idea of individual gun control within the USA. Does AKIN support or is he fighting this treaty, ATT, UN gun control efforts.?
> Subject: Second Amendment
> ------
> Mr. Obama, step away from Americans' guns
> If you suspect the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is a ploy to restrict
> your Second Amendment rights, and that the Obama administration is eager to
> use it to gut the Bill of Rights, you're not alone.
> Over 100 members of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- have lined up to
> resist Obama and the U..N.
> So, who's on your side ... and who's not?
> http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-to... [1]
>
>
> [1] http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-to-back-off-u-n-gun-treaty/
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Negroes with guns
Negroes with guns
by Ann Coulter
04/18/2012
Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")
This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.
If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.
Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.
Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.
Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "[I]t would give them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.
Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.
After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted "Black Codes," denying black Americans the right of citizenship -- such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms -- while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.
For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.
The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 -- passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant -- made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress' authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.
Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.
But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.
This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.
How's that "may issue" gun permit policy working for you?
The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence -- including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.
A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high -- beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.
But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.
Williams' repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, "Negroes With Guns." In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.
As the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun.
The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.
In the preface to "Negroes With Guns," Williams writes: "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."
Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.
Windows Live Tags: Negroes,Coulter,Liberals,death,Trayvon,Martin,Florida,MSNBC,Karen,Finney,regulation,General,Services,Administration,employees,money,Vegas,conclusion,George,Zimmerman,person,America,National,Rifle,Association,rights,organization,education,system,American,notion,history,Democrats,Democratic,policy,Civil,Klux,Klan,Americans,resistance,Contrary,outgrowth,membership,Union,Democrat,ACLU,Same,shores,Virginia,Chief,Justice,Roger,Taney,opinion,Scott,Sandford,logic,Republicans,Alas,Black,citizenship,Anti,Republican,president,Ulysses,Grant,felony,citizen,weapons,possession,defense,Under,Luther,Christian,Alabama,authorities,Nobel,Peace,Prize,violence,hero,Robert,Williams,World,Marine,veteran,Monroe,NAACP,chapter,Guard,comeuppance,Guns,physician,wife,sentry,terror,preface,self,Western,truth,lies,legislatures,Codes,reprisals,blacks,slavery
WordPress Tags: Negroes,Coulter,Liberals,death,Trayvon,Martin,Florida,MSNBC,Karen,Finney,regulation,General,Services,Administration,employees,money,Vegas,conclusion,George,Zimmerman,person,America,National,Rifle,Association,rights,organization,education,system,American,notion,history,Democrats,Democratic,policy,Civil,Klux,Klan,Americans,resistance,Contrary,outgrowth,membership,Union,Democrat,ACLU,Same,shores,Virginia,Chief,Justice,Roger,Taney,opinion,Scott,Sandford,logic,Republicans,Alas,Black,citizenship,Anti,Republican,president,Ulysses,Grant,felony,citizen,weapons,possession,defense,Under,Luther,Christian,Alabama,authorities,Nobel,Peace,Prize,violence,hero,Robert,Williams,World,Marine,veteran,Monroe,NAACP,chapter,Guard,comeuppance,Guns,physician,wife,sentry,terror,preface,self,Western,truth,lies,legislatures,Codes,reprisals,blacks,slavery
Blogger Labels: Negroes,Coulter,Liberals,death,Trayvon,Martin,Florida,MSNBC,Karen,Finney,regulation,General,Services,Administration,employees,money,Vegas,conclusion,George,Zimmerman,person,America,National,Rifle,Association,rights,organization,education,system,American,notion,history,Democrats,Democratic,policy,Civil,Klux,Klan,Americans,resistance,Contrary,outgrowth,membership,Union,Democrat,ACLU,Same,shores,Virginia,Chief,Justice,Roger,Taney,opinion,Scott,Sandford,logic,Republicans,Alas,Black,citizenship,Anti,Republican,president,Ulysses,Grant,felony,citizen,weapons,possession,defense,Under,Luther,Christian,Alabama,authorities,Nobel,Peace,Prize,violence,hero,Robert,Williams,World,Marine,veteran,Monroe,NAACP,chapter,Guard,comeuppance,Guns,physician,wife,sentry,terror,preface,self,Western,truth,lies,legislatures,Codes,reprisals,blacks,slavery
Monday, December 13, 2010
Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
This is from the Patriot Blog. Here an idea is expressed that was once succinctly stated by Japan
and others during WWII, the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. If all the hunters and gun owners
of all the states were included, the USA's home-guard of hunters/soldiers with some experience in
firearm use exceeds 200 million. Only the Chinese could claim similar numbers. Fortunately, less than
1/100 of 1 percent have any interest nor intentions of doing any harm to their fellows. Never-the-less,
such numbers must be in the minds of our potential aggressors. How to educate and focus the minds
of all these upon the problem of Muslim aggression and how to protect ourselves from the Jihadists
of the world is something no single person nor organization has yet attempted. When we are all
of one accord and properly educated in how to see, find, stop, and punish those misguided heroes
then the USA will once again become the safest and most prosperous nation on earth. Our first task
is to see to it that the populace recognizes all forms of treason for what they are and to reject all
political forms out of hand that are destructive to liberty. Socialism is the first target starting with
our whitehouse inhabitants then Congress using our ballot boxes and the power of the internet...
The world's largest army? America's hunters
Redding.com ^ | December 6, 2010
Posted on 12/06/2010 5:09:18 PM PST by SJackson
I don't spend my fall weekends tramping around the woods in pursuit of a
buck, but a lot of my friends and neighbors do.
This blogger adds up all the hunters in just a handful of states, and comes
to a striking conclusion:
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without
someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth
largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France
and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to
help keep the deer menace at bay.
But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of
Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the
case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest
army in the world.
His point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind
of home-grown firepower.
Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of
national security.
*************************************************
My own two cents on this, "That's why all enemies foreign and domestic want
to see us disarmed."
and others during WWII, the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. If all the hunters and gun owners
of all the states were included, the USA's home-guard of hunters/soldiers with some experience in
firearm use exceeds 200 million. Only the Chinese could claim similar numbers. Fortunately, less than
1/100 of 1 percent have any interest nor intentions of doing any harm to their fellows. Never-the-less,
such numbers must be in the minds of our potential aggressors. How to educate and focus the minds
of all these upon the problem of Muslim aggression and how to protect ourselves from the Jihadists
of the world is something no single person nor organization has yet attempted. When we are all
of one accord and properly educated in how to see, find, stop, and punish those misguided heroes
then the USA will once again become the safest and most prosperous nation on earth. Our first task
is to see to it that the populace recognizes all forms of treason for what they are and to reject all
political forms out of hand that are destructive to liberty. Socialism is the first target starting with
our whitehouse inhabitants then Congress using our ballot boxes and the power of the internet...
The world's largest army? America's hunters
Redding.com ^ | December 6, 2010
Posted on 12/06/2010 5:09:18 PM PST by SJackson
I don't spend my fall weekends tramping around the woods in pursuit of a
buck, but a lot of my friends and neighbors do.
This blogger adds up all the hunters in just a handful of states, and comes
to a striking conclusion:
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without
someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth
largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France
and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to
help keep the deer menace at bay.
But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of
Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the
case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest
army in the world.
His point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind
of home-grown firepower.
Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of
national security.
*************************************************
My own two cents on this, "That's why all enemies foreign and domestic want
to see us disarmed."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Ted Nugent -
Not withstanding his earrings and goatee, you still gotta love Ted.
I love the look on his face during Ted's answer!
Can you believe this aired on a public broadcasting station in AUSTIN?
http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html
Monday, July 27, 2009
Gun Control by Daniel New
Yes, I know, some of these posters are a bit over-stated.
What amazes me is the number of Americans, particularly Christians, who believe that it is wrong to defend and protect their own lives, and more importantly (if they hold their own lives so cheaply), the lives and well-being of their children and of other innocents.
I certainly understand the self-discipline to allow someone to strike you on the face, and to turn the other cheek. (And I have done it. It ain't easy.) But unto those to whom Responsibility is given, to protect and nurture and care for others, does not the paradigm shift radically? Is not a parent, for example, in much the same position as the civil magistrate, within the walls of his/her own house? Will not Yahweh hold us accountable for our duty of protecting them?
Don't ask, "What would Jesus do?" We already know. He came to die, for a Divine Reason. He then commanded his Disciples to "Go ye, into all the world, and preach the Gospel... ." In the midst of that Great Commission, He said, "Do you have a sword?" They did (and He knew it). He approved and endorsed, saying one would be enough. I don't know what effete Westerners think the sword was for, but I submit that it was not for snakes and wild animals. Wild animals flee the approach of men walking in a group. Highway robbers do not.
Ask, "WWJD" -- "What would Joshua do?" "What would Gideon do? "What would Abraham do?"
Look, we're all pacifists here. We all want peace. The first value of having a weapon is to convert a potential assailant into the same mindset, that there is nothing to be gained by violence. But the extreme pacifists of today would prefer, if forced to choose, that their own daughters be raped and tortured than that the assaulting pervert be sent to an early appointment with his Maker and Judge. This is contrary to Scripture.
When Abraham's family were kidnapped into certain slavery, he didn't sit around and pray that Yahweh would intervene. He gathered his men, who were armed, and he went after them. And he killed those who dared to touch his family.
The extreme pacifist believes there is no such thing as "justifiable war." That a "defensive war" is not justifiable. None of us advocate aggression against the people we don't like. (Well, okay, MOST of us, anyway. There IS a case to be made for hunting down marauding Indians and killing them, and that case is easily extrapolated to drug dealers and pimps. In the name of self-defense. But that's another editorial. Or chapter.)
The Quakers of early Pennsylvania were extreme pacifists. Many were murdered, and they did not resist. Their answer to marauding Indians? They invited Presbyterians to come and live amongst them!!! (In an indirect act of self-defense!!!)
I suspect the disconnect in the mind of the extreme pacifist is that he/she believes that the police, as enforcing agents of civil authority, are the ones who should protect us. And well they should. But the police cannot be everywhere, and if no citizen were armed, it would take a lot more police who would do a much worse job of protecting us. Most police WANT the honest, law-abiding citizen to be armed. Because they cannot be everywhere, and that means specifically that they cannot be at your house when you need them most! Arriving fifteen minutes later means they can secure the crime scene, and file a report.
Let's go one step further. When the civil government codifies the Law to allow the individual to be armed, and endorses the use of deadly force to protect one's life and liberty and property, then the argument of "leaving it to the authorities" applies to the homeowner and citizen, who are now empowered with the law.
Christian pacifists have this dichotomy in their minds, that God somehow changed after Jesus came and died. He did not! Yes, Jesus spoke to men about enduring insults, and about living under the yoke of another nation. "When you are compelled to carry a man's burden for him for one mile, you should do it readily. Carry it two miles!!" (This was a clear statement against rebellion, and for accepting the civil government that GOD has appointed over you. It had nothing to do with the principle of protecting, or not protecting one's life and the lives of one's children.)
Our view of this issue of self-defense is colored strongly by the actions of the Martyrs of the late First and early Second Centuries. They obviously lived closer, in time, to the Messiah and the Apostles than we do. They suffered their deaths in the coliseum with equanimity, refusing to fight just because Caesar ordered them to. I do happen to disagree with their decision to refuse to resist wild animals, but then, I wasn't there, and their deaths were just as sure, either way. It certainly took a lot of the fun out of it for the crowd to watch innocents killed for sport. Indeed, it contributed greatly to the change of attitude by magistrates, and eventually the persecution ended.
I also question the decision of later Second Century Christians who formed entire cohorts of soldiers and fought under arms for the Roman Empire. (Yet another editorial, I see. Hmm. Maybe chapter 3 in my forthcoming book.)
In the meantime, let's celebrate our diversity, and our remaining liberties with a few examples of the tools whereby we are free today. When these tools are removed, all liberty will go out like a candle in a storm.
What amazes me is the number of Americans, particularly Christians, who believe that it is wrong to defend and protect their own lives, and more importantly (if they hold their own lives so cheaply), the lives and well-being of their children and of other innocents.
I certainly understand the self-discipline to allow someone to strike you on the face, and to turn the other cheek. (And I have done it. It ain't easy.) But unto those to whom Responsibility is given, to protect and nurture and care for others, does not the paradigm shift radically? Is not a parent, for example, in much the same position as the civil magistrate, within the walls of his/her own house? Will not Yahweh hold us accountable for our duty of protecting them?
Don't ask, "What would Jesus do?" We already know. He came to die, for a Divine Reason. He then commanded his Disciples to "Go ye, into all the world, and preach the Gospel... ." In the midst of that Great Commission, He said, "Do you have a sword?" They did (and He knew it). He approved and endorsed, saying one would be enough. I don't know what effete Westerners think the sword was for, but I submit that it was not for snakes and wild animals. Wild animals flee the approach of men walking in a group. Highway robbers do not.
Ask, "WWJD" -- "What would Joshua do?" "What would Gideon do? "What would Abraham do?"
Look, we're all pacifists here. We all want peace. The first value of having a weapon is to convert a potential assailant into the same mindset, that there is nothing to be gained by violence. But the extreme pacifists of today would prefer, if forced to choose, that their own daughters be raped and tortured than that the assaulting pervert be sent to an early appointment with his Maker and Judge. This is contrary to Scripture.
When Abraham's family were kidnapped into certain slavery, he didn't sit around and pray that Yahweh would intervene. He gathered his men, who were armed, and he went after them. And he killed those who dared to touch his family.
The extreme pacifist believes there is no such thing as "justifiable war." That a "defensive war" is not justifiable. None of us advocate aggression against the people we don't like. (Well, okay, MOST of us, anyway. There IS a case to be made for hunting down marauding Indians and killing them, and that case is easily extrapolated to drug dealers and pimps. In the name of self-defense. But that's another editorial. Or chapter.)
The Quakers of early Pennsylvania were extreme pacifists. Many were murdered, and they did not resist. Their answer to marauding Indians? They invited Presbyterians to come and live amongst them!!! (In an indirect act of self-defense!!!)
I suspect the disconnect in the mind of the extreme pacifist is that he/she believes that the police, as enforcing agents of civil authority, are the ones who should protect us. And well they should. But the police cannot be everywhere, and if no citizen were armed, it would take a lot more police who would do a much worse job of protecting us. Most police WANT the honest, law-abiding citizen to be armed. Because they cannot be everywhere, and that means specifically that they cannot be at your house when you need them most! Arriving fifteen minutes later means they can secure the crime scene, and file a report.
Let's go one step further. When the civil government codifies the Law to allow the individual to be armed, and endorses the use of deadly force to protect one's life and liberty and property, then the argument of "leaving it to the authorities" applies to the homeowner and citizen, who are now empowered with the law.
Christian pacifists have this dichotomy in their minds, that God somehow changed after Jesus came and died. He did not! Yes, Jesus spoke to men about enduring insults, and about living under the yoke of another nation. "When you are compelled to carry a man's burden for him for one mile, you should do it readily. Carry it two miles!!" (This was a clear statement against rebellion, and for accepting the civil government that GOD has appointed over you. It had nothing to do with the principle of protecting, or not protecting one's life and the lives of one's children.)
Our view of this issue of self-defense is colored strongly by the actions of the Martyrs of the late First and early Second Centuries. They obviously lived closer, in time, to the Messiah and the Apostles than we do. They suffered their deaths in the coliseum with equanimity, refusing to fight just because Caesar ordered them to. I do happen to disagree with their decision to refuse to resist wild animals, but then, I wasn't there, and their deaths were just as sure, either way. It certainly took a lot of the fun out of it for the crowd to watch innocents killed for sport. Indeed, it contributed greatly to the change of attitude by magistrates, and eventually the persecution ended.
I also question the decision of later Second Century Christians who formed entire cohorts of soldiers and fought under arms for the Roman Empire. (Yet another editorial, I see. Hmm. Maybe chapter 3 in my forthcoming book.)
In the meantime, let's celebrate our diversity, and our remaining liberties with a few examples of the tools whereby we are free today. When these tools are removed, all liberty will go out like a candle in a storm.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4282 (20090727) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Mo MIAC
I'd like to know if I am endangered by the State of MO because I refuse to grovel at the feet of our Socialist Messiah, BO, and the American Socialist Party mis-named Democrat. Because I am openly conservative, worship the one true God, Jesus Christ, and oppose a one world order, the UN, illegal immigration, unfair taxation of any form, and am sure abortion amounts to murder of the most innocent of our nation, am I to be profiled, persecuted, my freedom of speech abridged, my name to be published on some assinine liberal socialist list so I might be more easily identified should some police officer stop me or question me about some infraction, however minor?
Have we become such a police state? Has our State Dept. of Public Safety so deteriorated that its highest officials could not see the error of such a report? Maybe we need to replace more than just a few politicians. That such a report could be making the rounds of other State Offices is utterly disgusting to me. Shall we now discriminate against the average Missourian because they do not share a messianic vision of socialism believing in individual freedoms and our Constitution's the bill of rights, etc.?
What are our State's elected officials views? Are they working to remove the people who are promoting these things?
Missouri Scraps MIAC Report & Being Vigilant Looking to the Future by Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The ARRA News Service previously posted an Update on Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal - Advisory on SPLC & ADL. Below are excerpts from today's column by Chuck Baldwin: Missouri Scraps MIAC Report. Pastor Chuck was one of the presidential candidates, Ron Paul and Bob Barr were the others, mentioned in the domestic terrorist MIAC alert has has a rather unique understanding of how event unfolded and actions that led to resolution of these false home land security reporting. In addition, the ARRA News Service, numerous other conservative blogs, myself and most of you -- our readers and your friends and families were also addressed in the report. ICYMI -- here's how:
Have we become such a police state? Has our State Dept. of Public Safety so deteriorated that its highest officials could not see the error of such a report? Maybe we need to replace more than just a few politicians. That such a report could be making the rounds of other State Offices is utterly disgusting to me. Shall we now discriminate against the average Missourian because they do not share a messianic vision of socialism believing in individual freedoms and our Constitution's the bill of rights, etc.?
What are our State's elected officials views? Are they working to remove the people who are promoting these things?
Missouri Scraps MIAC Report & Being Vigilant Looking to the Future by Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The ARRA News Service previously posted an Update on Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal - Advisory on SPLC & ADL. Below are excerpts from today's column by Chuck Baldwin: Missouri Scraps MIAC Report. Pastor Chuck was one of the presidential candidates, Ron Paul and Bob Barr were the others, mentioned in the domestic terrorist MIAC alert has has a rather unique understanding of how event unfolded and actions that led to resolution of these false home land security reporting. In addition, the ARRA News Service, numerous other conservative blogs, myself and most of you -- our readers and your friends and families were also addressed in the report. ICYMI -- here's how:
On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous "militia members." But the inference did not stop there. People of "conservative" ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.If you are interested in the background, the outcry and the withdrawal of the false report, read Baldwin's full article. However, below I am presenting some excerpts of Chuck Baldwin's comments that are looking toward future concerns for readers:
We need to remain vigilant, alert and prepared for the actions by those who would silence our opposition to the growing menace of socialism or would oppose our boldly expressing conservative principles and ideals, our defense of traditional values, and our expectations to the rights and freedoms granted us by the Constitution and our Creator.Dr. Chuck Baldwin: . . . This sordid story is truly an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State of Missouri. . . . Why DHS, you ask? Because the MIAC report is similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." There is another side of this story that is even more sinister, however.
If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.
I would further proffer that those of us who are outraged by this event should not stop with the MIAC report being removed. While this is very good news, the fear and intimidation associated with those referenced in this report has already taken place. Are people opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., now afraid to express their opinions publicly (especially in Missouri)? If so, this seems to me to be the basis for legal action, based on the abridgment of the First Amendment freedom of speech by a State (and perhaps federal) law enforcement agency.
There is yet another chilling question that must be answered: by saying Missouri State Police will "review" how MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers, does Col. Keathley mean that the State of Missouri's law enforcement agencies will continue to promote similar reports, but simply make them "Classified"? In other words, will they (and other State police agencies around the country) simply employ greater secrecy when issuing such reports, but do nothing to change the content of future reports? Hopefully not, but we shall see.
With that said, here are the lessons all of us need to take to heart:
* Every police officer, deputy sheriff, and law enforcement officer in America who believes in constitutional government, individual liberty, and the Bill of Rights needs to be alert for any report that smacks of the MIAC report, and be willing to quickly "blow the whistle" on any such report they see.
* Lovers of freedom should be much encouraged to see what can happen when they are willing to stand up to their State governing officials as they see abridgements to their liberties taking place. I say again, the best way to fight these mushrooming despotic tendencies of government we seem to see everywhere is to focus on our State governments. Do you now see why I say that? Even if DHS was behind the MIAC report, it was the State of Missouri that had to implement it; and it was the State of Missouri that (under pressure) killed it.
* Notice, too, that we did not need the major media to achieve this victory. We cut off this one branch of the tyranny tree without the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS (with the exception of Glenn Beck), or even the Drudge Report. Victory was achieved with the weapons of talk radio, syndicated Internet columns, Internet blogging, local news media, and word of mouth.
You see, folks, we can achieve victory without the major media. But we must stay focused and actively involved in our respective State governments. "We the people" are still the power of this country. And don't let anyone deceive you into believing anything else. Therefore, take heart in knowing that your diligence convinced the State of Missouri to rescind its atrocious MIAC report. Now, don't let it stop there. Let's faithfully cut off the tentacles of tyranny wherever we find them. . . . [Chuck Baldwin's Full Article]
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Fw: Stop Gun Control Now Or Lose Your Rights Later.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:29 PM
Subject: Stop Gun Control Now Or Lose Your Rights Later.
From: pl
To: plbooth@centurytel.netSent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:29 PM
Subject: Stop Gun Control Now Or Lose Your Rights Later.
Sent to you by pl via Google Reader:
via Constitution Party Of Missouri by admin on 3/8/09
Don’t make the same mistake that the English and the Australians did. They sat idle and lost their rights to own guns, now they protest when its too late. Hr 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 has been proposed in the House of Representatives here in America. Start fighting it now. Don’t wait.
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Constitution Party Of Missouri using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Baldwin On Supreme Court Gun Ruling
Press Release: Supreme Court Shoots Straight On 2nd Amendment. Presidential Candidate Challenges Americans To Continue Pro-Gun Momentum By Rejecting Anti- Gun Obama & McCain
Grand Rapids, MI (June 26, 2008) The Constitution Party, the largest third party based on voter registration (Ballot Access News), applauds the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the basic right of Americans to own guns.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404)
Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin2008.com) commented on Thursday's ruling saying, " The Supreme Court got this one right. While the ruling still contains elements gun owners should denounce,the justices acknowledged that the words "shall not be infringed" mean just what our Founders meant; and two centuries later the meaning of those words has not changed".
Baldwin added, "Countless assaults against the right of the people to keep and bear arms by both Republicans and Democrats over the years have taken a toll through draconian gun laws and oppressive legislation which has slowly and steadily chipped away at Americans' vital, God-given right to self-defense."
Baldwin pointed to Republican Senator John McCain saying, "We would expect the Democrats and Obama to be against gun rights, but voters need to be reminded that The "conservative" Republican McCain was behind anti-gun legislation to restrict sales at gun shows at both federal and state levels".(The pro- 2nd amendment group Gun Owners of America added:('This year it appears (McCain) is seeking to 'come home' to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep.'(Chuck Baldwin noted: " The Supreme Court decision is a sign of the political sea-change we're seeing in our country. While government has no right to demand people pay for (gun)permits, jump through hoops and ask for permission to exercise their 2nd amendment rights,The Constitution and all it guarantees cannot be dismissed and won't be when voters decide in November they'd like to see a return to the basics in their presidential candidate...and I am that candidate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)