Monday, September 21, 2009

Stop Saying Please!

Posted in Liberty's Friend by R Lee Wrights on September 20th, 2009
by Larken Rose
* * The Meaning of “Please” * *
Imagine a slave who, while being whipped, cries out, “Please, massa, no more!” What message does such a plea for mercy convey? Obviously, it conveys a desire for the beating to stop, but it also conveys another message-albeit an unstated one: “Master, I accept that it is up to YOU whether I am to be beaten or not.”
The word “please” is short for “if it pleases you.” In many contexts it is a polite thing to say, implying that it is up to the listener (not the speaker) to decide whether to do something or not. “Please pass the gravy” is a request, not a demand. “Please donate to this charity” is an invitation, not an order. Such uses of the term are both polite and proper. However, the term is not appropriate when the listener has no right to be the one making the choice to begin with. For example, someone confronting a purse- snatcher who just robbed a little old lady should not say, “Please give the lady back her purse.” Rather, the message should be, “Give it back or else!” In most situations, deferring to the listener’s pleasure (implied by the term “please”) is civilized and charitable, but it is not appropriate when the listener is about to harm an innocent person. Then, what’s called for is a command.
* * Begging for Freedom * *
The point of this linguistic lesson is this: The majority of what the “freedom movement” does essentially consists of the victims of tyranny saying to the tyrants, “Please stop oppressing us!” Whether one is lobbying for “legislation,” or trying to get a certain candidate elected, a dual message is being sent to those in power: A) “We want government to stop doing this to us,” and B) “we accept that the choice of whether to stop doing it is government’s (not ours) to make.” Consider just two examples (out of hundreds that could be used):
1) When one lobbies for lower “taxes,” it conveys a two-fold message: A) “We’d like to keep more of our money,” and B) “We accept that it is up to you, the politicians, to decide how much we can keep.” (Contrast that with what was done at the “Boston Tea Party.”)
2) When one lobbies against so-called “gun control,” both messages are again implied: A) “We’d like to keep our guns,” but B) “we agree that we need ‘legal’ permission from you politicians in order to have the right to do so.” (Contrast that with what happened in Lexington, with the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World.”)
While such requests certainly appear, on the surface, to be pro- freedom in nature, in a very real sense they are NOT. The underlying implication of all such petitions to those in government is that it is up to them, not up to the people, what “rights” the people will have. But such an implication completely contradicts the entire concept of individual rights.
* * Unalienable Rights * *
The Declaration of Independence expresses the idea that an individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not derived from any man-made law or any government, but is intrinsic to all people, having been “endowed by their Creator.” The very term “unalienable” implies that such rights cannot be taken away by any “legislation,” or any other act of man. (Such rights can, of course, be violated, but they still do not cease to be rights.)
Nonetheless, much of what is done by those claiming to be pro- freedom advocates consists merely of asking the politicians to either support or oppose this or that legislation, thereby giving their “legal” PERMISSION for the people to be free. In doing so, even some of the most ardent, well-meaning freedom activists are inadvertently conveying one message loud and clear: “We do NOT believe in unalienable rights!”
To REQUEST that one’s “rights” be honored by those in power is to concede that it is up to the discretion of “government” whether to allow the rest of us to do something or not, which in turn implies that we have no rights at all. (A “right” is, by definition, something that one does not need “government” permission to do.) On the other hand, to DEMAND that one’s rights be honored, whether those in “government” want to or not, and whether “the law” allows for it or not, is perfectly consistent and in keeping with the concept of “unalienable” rights. But how many people dare to make such a demand?
* * An Uncomfortable Position * *
The reason so many liberty advocates end up doing little more than begging for freedom is quite simple, and quite understandable. First, it is a scary thing to demand something from any large, heavily armed gang (”government” or otherwise), especially when that gang thinks it has the right to run your life. To engage in resistance against such a gang-whether by forceful or passive means-is a very dangerous undertaking. But there is a deeper issue as well.
Almost all of us, since back before we can remember, have been trained to respect and obey “authority,” and to obey whatever commands “authority” may give us. As a result, most people have a very hard time, for example, disobeying a police officer, not only due to fear of being arrested, tasered, etc., but also because, as a result of our upbringing and authoritarian indoctrination, it feels very uncomfortable, and even immoral, to not “do as you’re told.” As a result, and as odd as this may sound, most people have a very hard time viewing “the police” as mere mortals.
Most Americans are quick to comply with any request a “law enforcer” may make, even in situations where the same request, if made by an average citizen, would be responded to with anger, or even violence. When, for example, a police officer asks, “May I search your car?” the average American will, without hesitation, give his consent, even if he has done nothing wrong, and even if there is no reason to SUSPECT that he has done anything wrong. But if the average man on the street made such a request of a stranger (”May I search your car?”), he may very well get a response more along the lines of, “Of course not! Get away from me or I’ll slug you!”
The difference is that nearly everyone has been trained to bow to “authority.” (Anyone who wants to see just how profound, and how dangerous, the effects of such training are should study the experiments conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, as described in his book, Obedience to Authority.) Nearly everyone, when dealing with “law enforcement,” has an attitude of, “I am good, and therefore I cooperate with the police.” As a result of our conditioning, receiving the approval of “authority” feels good, while being the target of “official” condemnation feels bad. As a result, even mustering the mental strength to refuse to consent to an unjustified search, or to refuse to answer the questions of a perceived “authority”-even in situations where the police openly acknowledge one’s right to do so-is extremely difficult for most people.
How much more difficult, then, is it for the average person to even begin to consider the possibility of openly, intentionally disobeying the so-called “laws” of those who claim to be our rightful masters (i.e., “government”)? What good person would willingly take upon himself the label of “law-breaker” and “criminal”? Right here and right now, the answer to that question is: anyone who actually believes in freedom.
* * “Tolerating” and “Demanding” * *
Activists are constantly opining that we should “demand” that politicians do this or that, and that we should not “tolerate” the rampant corruption and oppression we see today. But, to be perfectly blunt, most of them don’t really mean it.
To “demand” something does not simply mean to beg for it; it means to insist upon it, backing up that insistence with a serious “or else” clause-a THREAT. Likewise, to not “tolerate” something means to not allow it to happen, which implies that one will use any means necessary to stop it from happening. So what do those in the freedom movement mean when they talk about “demanding” things of those in government, and not “tolerating” what government is doing? What, exactly, will they do if government ignores their “demands,” or does what they say they will not “tolerate”?
Most of the time, the only threat is that in a few years, the people “demanding” things might VOTE against those currently in power. However, when the next election rolls around-if they still even remember their “demands” by then-the voters will have a choice between voting for someone who will lose (from a third party), or voting for someone who will preserve the status quo (any Democrat or Republican). Either way, the same ruling class remains in power, the “demands” dissolve, and the people are stuck with the very situation that they said they refused to “tolerate.”
As a result, such “demands” are really not demands at all. Some people get outraged, jump up and down and shout a lot, and then, exhausted and defeated, they go back to being oppressed, without having changed a thing, and tyranny continues on its merry way. Is it any wonder that most people don’t bother to try?
* * It’s All In Your Head * *
The truth of the matter is that, as vicious and destructive as “government” can be, the real problem resides, NOT in Washington, but between the ears of several hundred million Americans. The only way a few hundred politicians can continually extort and control several hundred million citizens is by first convincing them that such extortion and control is legitimate. By labeling oppression as “law,” and condemning as “criminals” any who disobey any of those “laws,” tyrants-throughout the world and for thousands of years-have successfully trained the peasants to enslave themselves. As long as the common folk measure their goodness by how well they obey their masters, they will never be free, and oppressing them will be very easy.
And that is exactly what people do when they express pride in being “law-abiding taxpayers”: they are BRAGGING about handing over the fruits of their labors to politicians (being good “taxpayers”) and blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the politicians may issue (being “law-abiding” citizens). They take pride in their own subservience, and view as the scum of the earth any “law-breakers” who don’t.
* * Condemning Runaway Slaves * *
Sadly, and ironically, many people who call themselves advocates of freedom seem more than eager to demonize and chastise those few people who call for actual resistance to tyranny. They insistent that we must “work within the system” to achieve freedom, and proudly proclaim that they would never resort to “illegal” means to do so. What that literally means is that they do not believe that they should exercise their individual rights, or live as free human beings, unless and until “government” gives them PERMISSION to do so. Why beg that a “law” be changed unless you feel an obligation to obey such “laws,” even when they’re unjust?”
Petitioning those in government to “legislate” freedom is akin to trying to talk a carjacker into agreeing that you should be allowed to keep your own car. In addition to the very small likelihood of such an approach being effective (as unlikely as voting or lobbying is to result in freedom), such an approach also implies something absurd: that you need the carjacker’s CONSENT before you would have the right to keep your own car. Not many people would be silly enough to take such an approach, and yet most people, including most people in the freedom movement, do something equally silly, when they act as if they need the CONSENT of politicians in order to exercise their unalienable rights (which itself is a contradiction in terms).
However, those who do not play such pointless, ineffectual games-those who refuse to play by the tyrants’ rules-are often shunned as “extremists” by most conservatives, Constitutionalists, and even many libertarians. Any talk of “illegal” resistance to tyranny-in other words, any type of resistance that hasn’t received the tyrants’ written approval-is almost always met by harsh condemnation from those who claim to be proponents of individual liberty. This is no different than having a bunch of slaves who continually lament the injustices of slavery, but who then immediately condemn any slave who actually tries to escape the plantation.
There are only two options: either we are all the property of the politicians, and therefore our only legitimate recourse is to beg our owners to change their ways, or we own ourselves, and do not need anyone’s permission to be free. Sadly, the vast majority of Americans, including most of the people in the freedom movement, hold the former mindset, and regard as “fringe kooks” any who hold the latter mindset. As a result, even those who claim to be zealous advocates of liberty keep their activism within the confines of the game set up by the tyrants: the game of elections and legislation, which leeches away an enormous amount of time, effort and money from well-intentioned citizens, without giving them any positive results.
* * The Solution * *
There is also good news, however. Just as the PROBLEM is in your head (and the heads of several hundred million others), so is the solution. The solution is not any political party, any political campaign or movement, any lobbying effort, or any petition or protest, all of which play right into the notion that our only recourse is to ASK the tyrants (”the system”) to please let us be free. No, the solution is for you (and everyone else) to understand that you own yourself, whether the politicians’ “laws” acknowledge that fact or not. If Americans understood that one, simple, obvious truth, their outlook and their actions would drastically change. And they would achieve freedom without a revolution, and without any election or “political action” at all.
Imagine if people thought they had the right to keep what they earn, instead of believing that politicians have the moral right to forcibly take a portion of it, via “taxes.” If the people did not view such extortion and robbery as legitimate and “legal,” there is no way that IRS agents, who are outnumbered TWO THOUSAND to one by those whom they rob, could continue to collect. In fact, if the people didn’t view such robbery as legitimate, ending the “federal income tax” wouldn’t even require any sort of forcible resistance; universal “non-compliance” (i.e., many millions of people doing NOTHING) would make the entire scheme unenforceable.
The same is true of other sorts of tyranny, including citizen disarmament (”gun control”), drug prohibition, and all manner of oppressive “regulation” and “taxation.” If the general public understood that each person owns himself, and that no one owns anyone else, any initiation of violence against any individual-even if the aggressor calls himself “authority” and calls his attacks “law”-would be viewed as immoral and illegitimate, and would be resisted. And if there was universal disobedience to such oppression, tyranny would simply evaporate into thin air, without so much as a whimper. (Remember, all of the authoritarian enforcers-police, military, and the hordes of government bureaucrats-are people too, and enforce the decrees of politicians only because they view them as inherently valid and legitimate, and view disobedience to such “laws” as immoral. That is why they constantly use violence in the name of “the law,” in situations where they never would have used violence if they were acting only on their own behalf.)
Of course, if only a few people, or even a few thousand, understand the idea of self-ownership, and everyone else remains deceived, those few could not openly disobey the state without being crushed by its mercenaries (who would deem their violence to be righteous). The focus must, therefore, be on spreading the concepts of self- ownership and unalienable rights to as many minds as possible. But that is no easy task, since almost all of us have been taught, not only by the schools, media and government, but even by our families and friends-even those in the freedom movement-that obeying “authority” is the highest virtue, and disobeying is the worst sin.
None of these comments are intended to impugn the motives of those who are trying so hard, “within the system,” to achieve freedom and justice. They should be commended for their concern about the state of society today, and for their personal willingness to do something about it. But the truth is, it is not only ineffective, but self-contradictory to try to advocate liberty by way of “the system.” Focusing efforts on those who wear the label of “government” will never bring about freedom. The people who seek “high office” do so because they love to dominate others, and the widespread belief in “authority” gives them the opportunity to do so, in a way that even most of their victims view as legitimate.
Once the people stop viewing themselves as slaves, and stop viewing the politicians as masters, voting and lobbying will end, and the people will stop saying “please” to those who claim the right to rule them. Only then will freedom defeat tyranny.

Even the Dictionary is wrong????

Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax'
In an interview airing Sunday, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos pressed the president on his plan to require people to purchase health insurance.
By Kimberly Schwandt
Sunday, September 20, 2009

President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos got in a testy sparring match Sunday over whether the president's health care plan includes a tax increase, leading the host to look up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of taxes.
In the interview airing Sunday, Stephanopoulos pressed the president on his plan to require people to purchase health insurance.
"Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" the host asked.
Obama responded: " No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
Stephanopoulos then offered the dictionary definition.
"I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary: 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,'" he said.
Visibly taken aback, Obama rejected the notion it was a tax increase and said pulling the dictionary out was a sign the host was "stretching" a little.
"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said.
See the video here:

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Federal Goverment Business Failures.

Dear All 535 voting members of the Legislature:It is now official: You are all morons.

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke..

War on Poverty started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they're broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is brokeTrillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows NO sign of working.

And finally to set a new record:"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars ( that were the best some people could afford ) replaced them with high priced ( people who couldn't afford to are now making payments ) mostly Japanese models so a good percentage of the profits, from the sales, went out of the country.

And lastly, the American taxpayers are now going to be dinged with paying for yet 3 billion more dollars of our government's experiments to make our wallets even thinner.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy?

Are you crazy?Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! And what does this say about voters who put such pond scum in office?

We need to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010 and just vote against incumbents.


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Joe Wilson the truth teller , Heckler!!!

I would like to post the role call and voting record for rebuking of Joe Wilson. It is provided by the AP.

Find your represenitive and see how they voted. Call them, tell them how u feel, Support Joe in truth seems to me that the real problem wasn't that Joe yelled at the president....the real problem for the Congress is that he told the TRUTH!!!!!

By The Associated Press The Associated Press – Tue Sep 15, 6:34 pm ET
The 240-179 roll call Tuesday by which the House passed a resolution of disapproval against Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., for Wilson's "You lie!" shout during President Barack Obama's health care address to a joint session of Congress.
A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the resolution.
Voting yes were 233 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Voting no were 12 Democrats and 167 Republicans.
Voting present were 5 Democrats.
X denotes those not voting.
Present denotes those who voted they were "present" at the time of the vote but did not vote yes or no on the issue.
There is 1 vacancy in the 435-member House.
Democrats — Bright, Y; Davis, Y; Griffith, Y.
Republicans — Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Rogers, N.
Republicans — Young, N.
Democrats — Giffords, N; Grijalva, Y; Kirkpatrick, Y; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.
Republicans — Flake, Y; Franks, N; Shadegg, N.
Democrats — Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.
Republicans — Boozman, N.
Democrats — Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, X; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.
Republicans — Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, N.
Democrats — DeGette, Y; Markey, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y; Salazar, Y.
Republicans — Coffman, N; Lamborn, N.
Democrats — Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Himes, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.
Republicans — Castle, N.
Democrats — Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Kosmas, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.
Republicans — Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Posey, N; Putnam, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Young, N.
Democrats — Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.
Republicans — Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.
Democrats — Abercrombie, Y; Hirono, Y.
Democrats — Minnick, Y.
Republicans — Simpson, N.
Democrats — Bean, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Foster, Present; Gutierrez, Y; Halvorson, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.
Republicans — Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Schock, N; Shimkus, N.
Democrats — Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y.
Republicans — Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, N.
Democrats — Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.
Republicans — King, N; Latham, N.
Democrats — Moore, Y.
Republicans — Jenkins, N; Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.
Democrats — Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.
Republicans — Davis, N; Guthrie, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.
Democrats — Melancon, Y.
Republicans — Alexander, N; Boustany, N; Cao, Y; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Scalise, N.
Democrats — Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.
Democrats — Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Kratovil, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.
Republicans — Bartlett, N.
Democrats — Capuano, Y; Delahunt, N; Frank, Present; Lynch, X; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.
Democrats — Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y; Schauer, Y; Stupak, Y.
Republicans — Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, X; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, N.
Democrats — Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.
Republicans — Bachmann, N; Kline, N; Paulsen, N.
Democrats — Childers, Y; Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.
Republicans — Harper, N.
Democrats — Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Present.
Republicans — Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, N; Luetkemeyer, N.
Republicans — Rehberg, N.
Republicans — Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.
Democrats — Berkley, Y; Titus, Y.
Republicans — Heller, N.
Democrats — Hodes, N; Shea-Porter, Present.
Democrats — Adler, Y; Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.
Republicans — Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; Lance, N; LoBiondo, N; Smith, N.
Democrats — Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y; Teague, N.
Democrats — Ackerman, X; Arcuri, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Present; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, N; Maloney, Y; Massa, N; McCarthy, Y; McMahon, Y; Meeks, Y; Murphy, Y; Nadler, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, X; Weiner, Y.
Republicans — King, N; Lee, N; McHugh, X.
Democrats — Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; Kissell, Y; McIntyre, Y; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, Y; Watt, Y.
Republicans — Coble, N; Foxx, N; Jones, Y; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.
Democrats — Pomeroy, Y.
Democrats — Boccieri, Y; Driehaus, Y; Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kilroy, Y; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.
Republicans — Austria, N; Boehner, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.
Democrats — Boren, Y.
Republicans — Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.
Democrats — Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.
Republicans — Walden, N.
Democrats — Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Carney, Y; Dahlkemper, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, X.
Republicans — Dent, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N; Thompson, N.
Democrats — Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.
Democrats — Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.
Republicans — Barrett, X; Brown, N; Inglis, Y; Wilson, N.
Democrats — Herseth Sandlin, Y.
Democrats — Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, X.
Republicans — Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Roe, N; Wamp, N.
Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.
Republicans — Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, X; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.
Democrats — Matheson, Y.
Republicans — Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.
Democrats — Welch, Y.
Democrats — Boucher, Y; Connolly, Y; Moran, Y; Nye, Y; Perriello, Y; Scott, Y.
Republicans — Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.
Democrats — Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, Y.
Republicans — Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.
Democrats — Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.
Republicans — Capito, N.
Democrats — Baldwin, Y; Kagen, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, N; Obey, Y.
Republicans — Petri, Y; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.
Republicans — Lummis, N.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The 9-12 Rally in Washington DC

Hey Everybody!! Just got back from the 9-12 Rally in DC. It was an awesome experience. We met people from all over the Country who think like we do. We also handed out a bunch of pamphlets to promote the Blog. I look forward to the added exposure. In addition we will be posting pictures and Links associated with the Movement.

Stay tuned, I'll upload my pics after I get some sleep and Digest some of the information we gathered.

If you're just joining us, please check out some earlier posts and come back in a day or 2 to check out the new posts. All of You really inspired me today!

Thank You ALL!

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Enough Left vs. Right - Time To Stand Together!

Enough Left vs. Right ~ Time To Stand TogetherShare
Yesterday at 4:31pm

Dear Citizens,

I have many types of friends. I have passionate political friends. I have apolitical friends. I have devoutly religious friends. I have decidedly non--religious friends I have some who are not sure how they stand on these matters. Many are old friends from my childhood. Many are new friends only known by the internet. Some are a local and current, but they are all my friends.

We have all heard the old adage "Never talk about politics or religion with friends if you intend to keep them as friends." I understand the reason behind this statement, but as I have aged, I dislike the spirit behind it. Our closed minds have caused much division and dissent among the citizenry of our great nation. This has segmented us into many "defeatable" sub cultures and social/political niches and cliques.

There are many points of disagreement and there always be. It is the ability to work within that context that will save our nation.

Here are some things I challenge anyone to disagree with.

1. Our freedom and liberty in this nation are unsurpassed in the world.

2. This country and our way of life is worth saving for our posterity.

3. United we stand, divided we fall.

4. We all could be more involved in the political process and with the rights and duties of citizenship.

5. We are all American citizens (since it is this group to whom I am speaking).

6. Showing hatred, dislike and making derogatory statements about other groups is non-productive.

7. Kindness and gentleness are good things and should be practiced among us.

8. We are a stronger voice as citizens unified, than divided.

9. The common ground of United States Citizen should be stood upon to unite.

10. We owe this to all those who have either died, or were/are willing to for this country.

Enough left bashing right and right bashing left. It is what those who would destroy our country would have us do. We must stand together now, accepting each other and being unified in purpose,
or we shall surely lose what we have here.

One passionate group trumps another and so goes the wheel of responsibility and blame passing.
In war, if one company waits to come from the trench with the excuse that first, we all must agree on the method of exit, all stay hunkered down and are destroyed piece meal. Organized attack, like the one we are under (and believe me citizens, we are under attack and as long as we will take it, will continue to be) are coordinated with feints, demonstrations and artillery prior to the main assault. The best defense is good offense, by which a small force can keep a large and difficult to coordinate force on it's heels until support is assembled and brought to bear.

We now stand at that moment of action and have the luxury of taking the high ground and maintaining a posture of kindness and gentleness and unity. That is our tactic and our method of unification, with which none should argue. And with which, we will stand above the crowds to be an example to emulate.

Who will come with me?

This Post Written By Gene Tomlinson, a fellow Patriot!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

In Defense of the Constitution of the United States of America

In Defense of the Constitution of the United States of America

By pointing out the errors of past and present administrations, I am defending the Constitution of the United States of America. Some would call us conservatives, right-wing extremists, racists, dissidents and even terrorists; all because we don’t aggress with their ideas and, or actions.

“Dissent is the greatest form of Patriotism”; you could pay a high price of it!

Is the price worth it to you? It is to me and to the future of our great nation. I really don’t have a choice, because I understand what is happening. I realize it is easier for some to personally be silent, but it would be just like being in a burning building and not pulling the fire alarm.

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentleman wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” – Patrick Henry – 1775

The oath that our soldiers, congressmen and president takes, also applies to ‘We the People’

The Oath of ‘We the People’

‘We the people’, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that we will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that we will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that we take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that we will well and faithfully discharge our duties of citizenship, so help us god.

As average citizens we have taken the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ many, many times in our lives.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all”

· Are you committed to the Pledge that you have taken so many times in you life?

· Do you love this country like our founding fathers did?

· Do you pledge your all to preserving this great nation?

· Do you do everything you legally can to uphold the truths and principles of freedom founding in both The Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of the United States of America?

· Are you willing to take the Oath of ‘We the People’ and to live by it everyday?

As Thomas Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”—September 11, 1777

And as James Madison said, “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty”.

So please pledge allegiance again to this great nation. Take the Oath of ‘We the People’ and spread the knowledge and words of liberty and freedom. Our nation’s future, our children’s future and freedom’s future depends on it.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Have we forgotten????

Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union — 1777
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting.
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia in the words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia".
Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II.Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III.The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Article IV.The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them. If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, — or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.
Article V.For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state, to recal its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.
No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states. In determining questions in the united states in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Article VI.No state, without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled, shall determine otherwise.
Article VII.When land-forces are raised by any state for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.
Article VIII.All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be def rayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.
Article IX.The united states in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities, whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the united states shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The united states in congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a petition to congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be tried, "well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of reward:" provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states.
The united states in congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states — fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated — establishing or regulating post offices from one state to another, throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing thro' the same as may be requisite to defray the expences of the said office — appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the united states, excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united states — making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated "A Committee of the States," and to consist of one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction — to appoint one of their number to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expences to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted, — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloth, arm and equip them in a soldier like manner, at the expence of the united states; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and quipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled: But if the united states in congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such sta te shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled.
The united states in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expences necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled.
The congress of the united states shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six Months, and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.
Article X.The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states in the congress of the united states assembled is requisite.
Article XI.Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.
Article XII.All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and debts contracted by, or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united states, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.
Article XIII.Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that pur pose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America.
On the part of & behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
John Wentworth. Junr; August 8th, 1778
On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations:
William Ellery
Henry Marchant
John Collins
On the part and behalf of the State of New York:
Jas Duane
Fra: Lewis
Wm Duer
Gouvr Morris
On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Daniel Roberdeau
Jon. Bayard Smith
William Clingan
Joseph Reed; 22d July, 1778
On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:
John Hanson; March 1, 1781
Daniel Carroll, do.
On the part and behalf of the State of North Carolina:
John Penn; July 21st, 1778
Corns Harnett
Jno Williams
On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia:
Jno Walton; 24th July, 1778
Edwd Telfair
Edwd Langworthy
On the part of & behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay:
John Hancock
Samuel Adams
Elbridge Gerry
Francis Dana
James Lovell
Samuel Holten
On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Oliver Wolcott
Titus Hosmer
Andrew Adams
On the Part and in Behalf of the State of New Jersey, November 26th, 1778:
Jno Witherspoon
Nathl Scudder
On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware:
Thos McKean; Febr 22d, 1779
John Dickinson; May 5th, 1779
Nicholas Van Dyke
On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia:
Richard Henry Lee
John Banister
Thomas Adams
Jno Harvie
Francis Lightfoot Lee
On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina:
Henry Laurens
William Henry Drayton
Jno Mathews
Richd Hutson
Thos Heyward, junr.

A Call to Revoltution By Constitution

A Call to Revolution by Constitution

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself, or be ruled by a small elite.” - Thomas Jefferson

Our founding fathers gave us the Constitution of the United States of America. A great document chocked full of protection of the peoples’ rights under a government meant to serve the people. Yet everyday we watch politicians in Washington ignore, usurp, circumvent by legislation, disregard and shred our Constitution for their own power, profit and benefit. All the while we the people sit back and watch, with a helpless feeling. WE ARE NOT HELPLESS!!!

Under the 1st Amendment ‘we the people’ can petition the government fro a redress of grievances. Many people will tell you it doesn’t work, they won’t listen, etc. Yes they will! It amazes me that a million people will scream loud when “Facebook” takes away their right to content and privacy. But will sit by idol and do nothing when the government takes more and more of your rights everyday.

Why is that? Are they scared? They should be, of what the tyrannical government is doing and not what will happen if ‘we the people’ act as ‘we the people’. Stand up and shout loud, let them know how you feel. Meet together, stand together, protest together. Call the politicians out for what they are doing to ‘we the people’. We all may not agree about everything, but we all agree that they are out of control, and no longer represent ‘we the people’.

How much longer will we put off overthrowing this screwed up system just to work towards temporary solutions to the problems it causes? Let’s cut to the root of the matter right now!!

Wanted, full time constitutional revolutionaries! Not armchair revolutionaries, not ivory tower revolutionaries. Not “professional” revolutionaries, either, rather then making a business out of constitutional revolution, make constitution revolution your business. Men and women who will not allow their efforts to win back their freedom to become just another job or fad. Men and women who are ready to live according to their desires around the clock.

“Government is instituted fro the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” - John Adams

Let’s take back our country!! Let’s take back our constitution!! Let’s make this nation great again. Make them listen and effect real change for the people they were elected to serve.

We all know what the politicians are doing to the constitution is wrong but we don’t speak up. Many say, “I’m unsure, I’m afraid and I don’t really know if this is the right thing to do….”

But I tell you this: THE SILENCE ENDS HERE AND NOW!!!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Friday, June 26, 2009

The Muslim Faith Confronted!

I do not generally forward religious emails since I may not know their origin. However, this one I must send on as I am a non-Muslim and a Christian who does not believe the teachings of the Muslim religion. This is an eye opener.

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry. The man who walks with God always gets to his destination. If you have a pulse you have a purpose. The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States , especially in the minority races!!! Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, 'Non-believers!'I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?' The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.'He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.' I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!' The Imam was speechless! I continued, 'I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?' You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification Training Seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs. In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S.. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us send it on! This is your chance to make a difference... FOR GODS' SAKE! SEND THIS ON!

Friday, June 5, 2009

The push is on and they don't like it.

Posted by a strong and advide supporter of the COnstitution.
Org. on

Industry signage leader rejects campaign asking simply 'Where's the birth certificate?'WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – The company touting itself as the "world's largest out-of-home media" enterprise has banned WND's national billboard campaign that asks one simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
CBS Outdoor, a division of CBS Corp. that sells more outdoor advertising than any other billboard company in North America, refuses to accept purchases of space on any of its 550,000 displays nationwide, media buyers for WND report.
The billboard campaign was begun last month by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, due to his frustration with media colleagues not giving attention to what he sees as critical questions about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president."Here we have one of the largest media companies in the U.S. now not only refusing to allow news coverage of a vitally important national question being asked by millions of Americans, but one that won't even permit the purchase of space to raise the question," said Farah. "What is the value of a First Amendment in a country when this kind of self-censorship is at work – self-censorship specifically geared to stifle inquiry and debate about the most powerful person in the country."Are you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?
Farah maintains Obama has not proved he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president as a "natural born citizen, and suggests only the release of his long-form birth certificate showing the hospital of his birth, attending physician and other details can conclusively meet that test. Obama's presidential campaign released to select news organizations only what is known as a "certification of live birth," a document obtainable in Hawaii in 1961 by Americans actually born outside the country.
GO HERE to read more

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Are we a Godless nation as Obama would have the world believe.

Its seems funny how all the States of this Republic all say we are a nation founded under God.... but our leader tells everyone else something totally different.

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." I found this very interesting. Do you know the Preamble for your state? . . Be sure to read the message at the bottom!

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government....
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom....
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution. Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution....
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...

President Obama used the wrong pronoun. He does not speak for me, as in "we." He speaks for himself.

Stop hiding the truth!! Transparent? Accountable?


Revealed: 'The Obama birth certificate protection act'?
Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documentsPosted: May 24, 20099:12 pm Eastern©
2009 WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama, the man elected president
WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of the executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.
The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."
"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this were one of the intended consequences of this legislation," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who last week initiated a national billboard campaign to bring attention to the issue of Obama's missing birth certificate and what it might say about his claim to be a "natural born citizen," a status necessary to serving in the White House.
"In any case, this bill puts the lie to this administration and this Congress being the most ethical and transparent in American history," Farah said. "They're very open when it comes to the secrets of previous administrations, but when it comes to their own work, it is shrouded in secrecy. Even the president's birth certificate and student records are well-guarded state secrets."

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Goverment's Fear of The Right to Bear Arms.

Just a bit of history to help us all stay focused. who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State."~ Heinrich Himmler; Reichsfuhrer-SSRecently, there has been a great deal of conversation concerning the Second Amendment and whether the present administration is going to be a friend, foe or neutral to "gun ownership." This article attempts to shed light on the discussion. Can we find an historical time which gives us enough social, economic, and governmental parallels with today and the current administration to make a rational judgment concerning what is likely to occur? Sure we can, more than one; but I think we will find today has a great deal in common with the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527 to 565 AD).When Justin, Justinian’s uncle, took the throne (518 AD) he and Justinian found the treasuries full. Procopius tells us that the previous emperor "had been the most provident and economical of all monarchs, fearing…that the inheritor of his Empire should find himself in need of money, would perhaps plunder his subjects, (and) filled all the treasuries to their brim with gold before he completed his span of life."According to Procopius this was a huge sum that "would take the most extravagant of Emperors a hundred years to disburse…" However, Justinian had in a few short years squandered the entire amount.The result was that when Justinian, in 527 AD, acquired the purple robe of the emperor the eastern empire was in financial straights.Justinian also found himself embroiled in a war with the Sassanian Dynasty of Persia. This inherited war, along with his desire to regain western Roman provinces which had been lost through earlier barbarian invasions, meant he had to support Roman troops in northern Africa against the Vandals, the Visigoths in Spain and in Italy against the Ostrogoths. Equally important was the amount of money Justinian paid to those who we would consider "illegal aliens." While a potential threat, the Huns were thought by Justinian, to be indispensable on the grounds that an alliance "was necessary to the Romans against the Goths…or some other foe." Justinian was so convinced of the Huns value to the empire that even after they had raided and plundered Roman citizens he stopped the Thracian and Illyrian generals who planned to attack them as they returned to their own territories. The consequence of Justinian’s payments and policy toward the Huns was that "having once tasted (of) Roman wealth, (they) never forgot the road that led to it." The Huns, thus emboldened, "ravaged the country as if they were the foe, and enslaved the Romans there; and, laden with booty and captives, these friends and allies of the Romans returned to their homes."One of the great aspects of studying history is realizing how human nature never changes. Justinian’s policies toward the Huns and their continued raiding of Roman property holders put the Romans farmers in those provinces attacked, in an awkward position. Thus the farmers did what any reasonable person would do when faced with a continuing threat to their family and property; they banded together and attacked the unlawful intruders.Evidently these justice loving farmers were successful, for we are told their retaliation resulted in Huns being killed, horses taken and packed with spoils; all of which were undoubtedly considered to be just recompense for past pain and suffering. We are often informed that government hates competition and it was the same in ancient times. Justinian’s reaction was unquestionably to label those Roman farmers as terrorists, vigilantes, rogue militia or some such "antisocial" term, then to send "agents…from Constantinople to beat and torture them and seize their property, until they had given up all the horses they had taken from the barbarians."Justinian, unlike today, didn’t have the means to produce money out of thin air. Oh, his policies would impoverish future generations but it wasn’t through debt. Justinian’s only means of raising the capital he needed was either through taxation or unashamed murder and subsequent confiscation of the victim’s wealth. Those whose wealth had been stolen, but allowed to live were released to struggle through life in abject poverty.Some bureaucratic offices were abolished while others were created then staffed with criminals who were thought to be too smart or too capable not to be placed in positions of authority. This, of course, led to more political abuses, authoritarian injustices, and a more powerful criminal state.So great was the fear of Justinian and his roving agents that family members and friends turned on each other and "… many died by conspiracy of members of their own households. Nor was there any investigation after these deeds…and none avenged the victim. No longer was there left any force in law or contract, because of this disorder, but everything was settled by violence." "The State," Procopius says, "might as well have been a tyranny": but it wasn’t an established tyranny in the conventional sense, rather the Byzantine state was so chaotic that what was law one day was being replaced with something new and different the next. Honest bureaucrats were reduced to sniveling cowards, while judges decided cases not according to what was lawful or traditional justice but based solely on who had the greatest or fewest political connections and what was currently politically correct.It was one injustice heaped upon another that finally brought the people to a state of rebellion. Procopius explains: "…[T]hose who suffer the most grievously from evildoers are relieved of the greater part of their anguish by the expectation they will sometime be avenged by law and authority. Men who are confident of the future can bear more easily and less painfully their present troubles; but when they are outraged even by the government what befalls them is naturally all the more grievous, and by the failing of all hope of redress they are turned to utter despair."This despair was first manifested in the rural districts when, because of new laws which amounted to a religious form of political correctness, people were forced “…by the compulsion of law, (to) abandon the belief of their fathers…” which resulted in armed rebellion. The rebellion was for a time successful, but eventually suppressed by Roman troops.In bringing the uprising to an end, Justinian had in effect made some of the "…most fertile country on earth…destitute of farmers. To the Christian owners of these lands, the affair brought great hardship: for while their profits from these properties were annihilated, they had to pay heavy annual taxes…to the Emperor for the rest of their lives, and secured no remission of this burden."However, this was just the beginning of Justinian’s problems. Justinian had come from the peasant class and didn’t have the support of the Roman nobility which left him with no power base among the old aristocracy. As a result Justinian sought to establish his power base through what was known as the blue party. This was a group of criminals who, with Justinian’s blessing "carried steel openly from the first, while by day they concealed their two-edged daggers along the thigh under their cloaks" and to whom he was very generous with both money and positions of power.To say that Justinian was not universally popular would be an understatement. His unbridled use of power, criminal associations, lack of support among the nobility, failed economic policies, and total disregard for justice, almost cost him his throne.It was January 13, 532 AD when the anger of Justinian’s subjects reached a fevered pitch in what is known as the Nika riots. When it was all over Justinian was still in power but some 30,000 who had opposed him were dead; leaving Justinian free to enforce his brand of law.Among Justinian’s laws, is Title XIV, Concerning Arms, Eighty-Fifth New Constitution (P.313) in which we find the following:Chapter I"Therefore, desiring to prevent men from killing each other, We have thought it proper to decree that no private person shall engage in the manufacture of weapons, and that only those shall be authorized to do so who are employed in the public arsenals, or are called armorers; and also that manufacturers of arms should not sell them to any private individual…"Chapter III"Therefore, God directing Our thoughts, We decree by the present law that no private individual, or anyone else whosoever shall, in any province or city of Our Empire, have the right to make or sell arms, or deal in them in any way, but only such as are authorized to manufacture them can do so, and deposit them in Our armory…"Chapter IV"But in order that what has been forbidden by Us to private persons and all others may become clear, We have taken pains to enumerate in this law the different kinds of weapons whose manufacture is forbidden. Therefore We prohibit private individuals from either making or buying bows, arrows, double-edged swords, ordinary swords, weapons usually called hunting knives, those styled zabes, breast-plates, javelins, lances and spears of every shape whatever, arms called by the Isaurians monocopia, others called sitinnes, or missiles, shields, and helmets; for We do not permit anything of this kind to be manufactured, except by those who are appointed for that purpose in Our arsenals, and only small knives which no one uses in fighting shall be allowed to be made and sold by private persons…"Far too often the concern regarding gun ownership has revolved around the question: "Will the government seek to take our firearms?" This has consistently been the wrong inquiry; it should never have been "will," but rather "when will." The former is implicit with the addition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution while the latter is subject to a number of real or imagined threats to the state.George Washington stated much the same thing in his letter to congress at the close of the Constitutional Convention. Washington wrote in part: "…It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to be obtained..." (Italics mine)President George Washington’s dislike of the "militia" as defined by the Second Amendment, in favor of a standing army, is well documented by historians.Washington defined the statement "magnitude of the sacrifice" when he utilized "militias" from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey as a de facto federal standing army to put down the Monongahela Valley "Whisky Rebellion" of the 1790’s; thereby securing a federal tax in perpetuity. In earlier articles I endeavored to show that government is neither about morality, nor immorality but always about power; either as a protector or predator and sometimes as the principle in both roles at once. When it is understood that government’s power is in reality compulsive unification then it becomes equally obvious that any nonconformity will not be tolerated.Thus, Washington’s statement above takes on a whole new meaning. For as society continues in the woes of an economic melt down, being pressured by border incursions, hampered by decisions of inept leadership, saddled with abusive taxation and faced with the loss of their present and future welfare etc… they will of necessity become less amenable to conforming to the dictates of the state.This threat to the government’s power base will be met first with tactics that generate fear and intimidation, then in the last instance with raw, brute force. Both will be designed to reduce the threat to the state, from nonconformity, by disarming the general public.As a centralized force, the Federal government, regardless of the administration, has been a foe of gun owners since April 30, 1789 and of the Second Amendment since December 15, 1791.

Obama's Legitamancy As A US Citizen Part 2

Another fine work by a fellow Patriot keeping up the fight for truth, justice and freedom!

To The Congress of the United States of America,
My name is Randall McNeely. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. Rather, I am an American--one of "We the People" that you have been voted into represent. I am writing this letter out of concern for the welfare of our great nation.
As an average citizen, I have taken the pledge of allegiance which states:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I'm committed to that pledge. I love this country and like our Founding Fathers, I pledge my all to preserving our nation. That includes doing everything I legally can to uphold the truths and principles of freedom found both in the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution.
In the eyes of the law, nevertheless, I am not sworn to defend the United States Constitution. You, however, are.
As it appears that the majority of you have forgotten the oath for both Senators and Representatives, let me quote it for you here.
I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
You have been voted in to office, in good faith, by "We The People" to represent us. You have sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. You have sworn to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, of your own free will, with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion. You have committed to faithfully discharge the duties of your office--so help you God--meaning that you have sworn to do so before God, He being your witness.
Does the United States Constitution sitll matter? Have you been doing your job of defending the U.S. Constitution? If your answer to both of these questions is "yes," how is it that so many questions regarding the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of The United States (POTUS) remain largely unasked and unanswered by the Congress of the United States? What questions? Let me list them for you.
1) Given the following statement in the 39th Congress by the Honorable John Bingham, chief author of the 14th amendment, how does Barack Hussein Obama meet the requirements of "natural born" citizenship, given that his father was a Kenyan, subject to British rule?
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of the what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen ..."
2) Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii as has been claimed (in two different hospitals, by the way) or was he born in Kenya as his paternal grandmother claims?
3) Is the certification of live birth posted on Mr. Obama's campaign web site real or is it a forgery as has been attested by computer graphics expert Dr. Ron Polarik (name changed for protection) at
4) If Mr. Obama has nothing to hide, why, after John McCain was willing and virtually forced to produce one, does Mr. Obama still refuse to produce a Certificate of Live birth that looks like this:
(picture will be inserted)
As opposed to a certification of live birth, which looks like this:
(picture will be inserted)
There is a difference. A certificate of live birth gives information in much greater detail, including listing the hospital of birth and doctor's signatures. The certification of live birth does not give any of this information. According to Hawaiian statute, it can be obtained in Hawaii for children not born in the state:
"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
If there is nothing to hide, wouldn't producing a certificate of live birth put this issue to rest?
5) Did Mr. Obama attend Occidental college as a foreign exchange student?
6) Did Mr. Obama give up his U.S. citizenship when, as a young child, he was adopted as "Barry Soetoro" by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, and enrolled in an Indonesian (Muslim) school that could only be attended by Indonesian citizens?
7) On what passport did Mr. Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981, given that Pakistan was under marshall law at the time and no U.S. Citizens were allowed into the country?
8) Is Mr. Obama a legal U.S. citizen? If so, by what process did he regain his citizenship after becoming an Indonesian citizen?
9) Can someone who has given up their U.S. citizenship, then been become a naturalized citizen, if that is indeed what Mr. Obama has done, qualify to be POTUS?
10) If Mr. Obama registered for the Selective Service in 1980, why does his Selective Service System (SSS) registration card have a Document Location Number on it for 2008 and the accompanying SSS printout have one for 1980? Is the form real or a forgery? (See
11) If Mr. Obama desires to be transparent in all his doings, as he has so oft repeated, why has he hired a team of lawyers to fight having to answer any of the above questions or produce the requested documentation. If he has nothing to hide, why not just produce the requested documentation and put this issue to rest?
Esteemed and Honorable Congressmen and Congresswomen, for you ought to be esteemed and honorable, what is the cause of your inaction with regard to these questions? Do you buy into the "Obama is the Messiah" image that many of Mr. Obama's supporters, and even he himself at times, have pushed and you are afraid of offending almighty "O"? Does your negligence stem from the belief that Mr. Obama really is Abraham Lincoln reincarnated, as he has tried to portray, and you figure, "Well, he was already the 16th POTUS, so why do we need to vet him now?" Are you more concerned about what might be viewed as "Politically Correct" or politically expedient than you are about doing what is right? Do you buy into the idea that Americans today must pay for transgressions of past Americans and therefore black Americans deserve a black president because it is their "due", irregardless of whether that person is qualified to be POTUS? Is your disregard for the Constitution, and the oath you have taken, caused by a lust for power and a willingness to do what ever it takes to stay in power, notwithstanding your oath? Would you have "We the People" conclude by your apathy in this matter that you are traitors to your country and in collusion with Mr. Obama to perpetrate the largest hoax on the American people in our 233 year history? What is the cause of your inaction?
Again I ask, "Does the U.S. Constitution Matter?" These are not trivial concerns. These are not fringe questions. These are questions that must be answered if, as Abraham Lincoln stated in his marvelous Gettysburg Address, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" are to be preserved and "not perish from the earth." This is an all out frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution. By your inaction, you are not only complicit in allowing U.S. Constitution to be shredded before your very eyes, you are also slapping every American in the face and proverbially spitting on the graves of our Founding Fathers and every other American that has died defending our God-given freedoms.
Which side will you come down on? Given the actions already taken by many of you over several years, in pushing forth and passing legislation that you know to be totally unconstitutional, I realize that I am merely talking in the wind by bringing these things to your attention and asking where your loyalties lie. I may as well ask the fox guarding the hen house to be nice to the chickens when he eats them as to ask you to do anything about preserving the U.S. Constitution.
But, to those of you who still have a spark of freedom within you, I ask will you not now rise up, while there is still time, and show yourself true American patriots by working diligently to bring the truth to light? Will you not love your country more than self and live up to your oath of office? Will you show yourselves to have the courageous boldness of our Founding Fathers by being valiant and true to the cause of freedom or will you show yourselves to be cowardly traitors as was Benedict Arnold? If so, have the courage to call for an independent counsel to be established to answers these questions regarding Mr. Obama's eligibility to be POTUS once and for all. If Mr. Obama is proven to be eligible to be POTUS, wonderful, we can put this issue to rest. If he is proven ineligible, then have the courage to remove him from office, put Mr. Biden in as President Pro Tempore until a new election can be organized, and run the new election. Do not allow the enormity of the task to frighten you away from doing your sworn duty!
Again, my name is Randall McNeely. I am an American patriot who loves his country. I am not seeking for power or prestige but rather I seek to preserve our great nation. Like our Founding Fathers, I pledge my all to doing everything legally within my power to uphold the truths and principles of freedom found both in the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution.
Randall McNeely