Thursday, January 28, 2016

Trump | Afterburner with Bill Whittle

I still think Ms. clinton will be pressured into withdrawing and endorsing Mr. biden by hook or by crook. Other than that, well said, Mr. Whittle.



Wednesday, January 27, 2016

R.I.P. LaVoy Finicum

This blog offers condolences to the family and friends of Mr.LaVoy Finicum. 

It has been the policy of this blogger to refrain from offering political opinions or other analysis while offering condolences. But the death of Mr. Finicum is different. It is different because this is not just the death of a rancher, but an unmistakable symptom of the decay of the character of the citizens of America,

While there will be many deconstructing the events around his death, the truth is that he was killed because we have allowed our government to become tyrannical. 

 Were it not so, peaceful protesters would have been allowed to be occupying  this property for as long as it took to resolve the constitutional issues at hand. They were not threatening the lives of anyone. They were not damaging the property. Their stated reason for seizing that property was Constitutionally valid. While I may not have agreed with their choice of actions, I respected their wish to support and maintain the US Constitution, because that protects my liberty as well as their own.

Having watched Pete Santilli's live feed for a while, it is clear that many of the people of this nation are no longer in possession of the necessary character needed to maintain the form of government set up by our founders. The sheer juvenile nature of some of the comments regarding the death of an intrinsically valuable and unique human being, one who was willing to give his life in support of their own liberty - liberty, not license - was appalling. Their ignorance of the constitution is appalling. Their lack of respect for life is appalling.

Their lack of ability to look at the situation and disagree respectfully out of some sense of decorum and respect for the dead is unacceptable.

 My apologies to the family and friends of Mr. Finicum for offering this opinion where it does not belong. Again, you have my condolences. May the Lord guide us because we are lost.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." ~ Ephesians 6:12-13


Thursday, January 21, 2016

Monday, January 18, 2016

Hillary Supporters: REPEAL the BILL of RIGHTS Petition Signed After Told...

Are you actually paying attention to what your favorite candidates are saying - or do you just go along because that's your team?
Mr. Dice has done a lot of this type of false petition for outrageous things, but this one, this one deserves to be on the blog. Repealing the Bill of Rights? Come on.
I have to wonder how many people would sign such a petition were it offered in the name of their favorite conservative candidate?  Or Green or Libertarian candidate?
Pay attention people.



Thursday, January 14, 2016

It's Not about Guns


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The discussion about "gun control" has been quite vigorous, even accompanied by presidential histrionics of late. But the discussion should rightly be about "arms control" because the second amendment says nothing about guns. It does not even contain the word "gun".  It says "arms" and quite deliberately so.

The public discussion has been limited to guns, perhaps at first, because it was convenient. But the second amendment refers to arms because it wasn't about guns. It was about defending the nation from a tyrannical government. A government that had " becomes destructive of these ends"

What ends? The ones outlined as the purpose of government by the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

It was not the government granting a right to the people, it was the government being forced to recognize a natural right the people had. Not just to defend themselves, but to choose their government.

That is what the American Experiment is: an experiment that required a personally responsible and self reliant people. A people who could take care of themselves, thank you. A people who just wanted to go about the business of living without being burdened by one law, regulation or ordinance more than was absolutely necessary to the creation of a stable society - and the government was not to interfere in that without the consent of these same people. Could such a people survive and thrive without a government nanny or tyrant? That was the experiment - by the consent of the governed, not just their hollow acquiescence, but their consent - informed and responsible consent.

The Constitution is not a list of governmental powers - it is a list of restrictions of government.

And the discussion today is not about gun control - that is a convenient ruse which also serves to restrict the thinking of Americans to just guns, rather than arms.

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:"Arms'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]


  1.  Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.                   
  2.  War; hostility."Arms and the man I sing.To be in arms to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.To take arms is to arm for attack or defense. Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.                                                            
  3.  The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, etc., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.                                                                                         
  4.  In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.                                                                                
  5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.                                                                                                                                                                         Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.                                                                                                                                                                                                       A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.                                                                                                                                 In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot." 

The idea of arms is markedly different than the idea of guns. When the media tells us about gun control, it is easy to think in terms of self defense or hunting because a gun is the tool of an individual. It cannot be used by a group. Were the media and others to talk about restraining us from the bearing of arms, it would reshape the dialogue. 

The intent of the second amendment was not to codify the right to self defense or hunting. The very idea that the right to bear arms was about such such self evident rights would have been seen as absurd in a time when most, if not all, hunted for the table and dueling was legal. The intent, then, was to assure the people that they had the self evident right, as codified in the the Declaration of Independence, to determine what form of government they would have and further, that they had the right to take up arms to achieve such government 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

This current dialogue between conservatives and communists is not about guns. It is about control. Communists cannot allow the people to be armed, because an armed people is a people who can resist the tyranny of the appalling utopian visions of the communists whose ideology depends on absolute power over the people. (Which explains a lot about the attacks on the Christian religion too, but that's a post for another day.)


Free men and women cannot allow their arms to be taken away, because then they can easily be made into slaves.


That is the current struggle. The two positions are irreconcilable, because these things cannot co-exist. It is not that the free men and women would deny their communist counterparts the ability to live under that tyrannical system, should they so choose, but rather that communism cannot tolerate dissent or deviance from the free men and women.

Communism does not allow for the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It only allows for rigid conformation to the dictates of the government. If you disagree, you will be eliminated because you are not fit to live and the good of the many outweighs the rights of the individual. 

There are communist and socialist nations out there already. China and North Korea spring to mind. If you want to live under that ideology, no one will keep you from moving to those nations. But, if you want to live here in the US, if you want the freedom to dissent openly and to worship freely and all the other self evident rights and freedoms of this experiment in self government, then you, too, must undergo the fatigues of supporting it. That means you must allow others to speak and worship and act freely, within the natural limitations of those natural rights. That means that responsible ownership and use of arms is a duty. But if that particular duty is not one that you can fulfill, at least do not hamper your fellow citizens in doing theirs.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Just as the second amendment is about arms and not guns, the current dialogue is not about guns either. It's about control.

"
Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the Lord, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken." ~ Amos 5:14


Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Thoughts on the standoff in Oregon and Oaths of Office

Many conservatives have weighed in on the current situation in Oregon. And many, if not most, of them are urging caution and questioning the value of the action being taken and decrying it as giving the government an excuse to crack down on the second amendment. The idea that we should not support these folks because it will give the government an excuse to crack down on guns assumes the premise that the government is looking for an excuse to do that very thing. Think about that.

 The federal government of the United States of America can now be presumed to be looking for excuses to disarm the people from whom that very same government derives it's authority.

That alone, should see government officials up on charges for the violation of their oaths to protect and uphold/defend the Constitution. The government did not grant these rights, because they lack the authority to do so. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, as do all the others, merely recognizes a right we HAVE. The government may not take that right away. Not for handguns, not for AR 15s, not for machine guns or cannons. In the words of Tenche Cox:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Why aren't they under arrest already? Because We the People no longer understand the freedoms for which the founders of this nation fought, nor are We willing to undergo the fatigues necessary to defend them.

 "THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." ~ Thomas Paine But, getting back to the situation in Oregon, let's look at the legal limitations on the ownership of land by the federal government:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..." ~ The United States Constitution Has anyone bothered to check and see if the federal government's purchase of the federal lands in Oregon that are at the heart of the dispute were purchased with the consent of the Oregon state legislature? Are there any "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" erected upon all that land?

One might even question the existence of Oregon as a state given that, according to one article, the Congressional Research Service says the federal government "owns" 53% of it's land.

To be sure, in the early days of the nation, the new national government was caught off guard when the Treaty of Paris awarded them the Northwest Territories after the 7 years war. Here they had ended up in legal, but unconstitutional, possession of a great deal of land. What to do? After the states ceded their (often competing) claims on that land to the national government,  the Northwest Ordinance was quickly passed in order to put that land into the hands of the people and eventually the states that were formed and granted membership in the nation. The land was held in trust as territories until the people of those territories could meet the requirements set up to apply for statehood. Is Oregon a territory held in trust or is it a state?

The federal government is not to own land because, at a very basic level, land is power. Grants of land and estates was one of the powers of the monarchy that was used to assure loyalty. If the monarchy had to take your estate, it could then grant your former estate to someone who would be more loyal or who had connections that would work to the benefit of the monarchy. This power of land granting was well understood by the founders of this nation and it was not a power they wanted the national level of this new government to have. It was a safeguard to the nation that the national level of the government was not allowed to own large swaths of land which it could award to those who might help to overthrow the people and render us slaves once again to a less freedom inclined form of government.

The bottom line is that the hour is late and we are threatened from within. Contact your legislators and let them know that the remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence is not out of the question.

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 


"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" ~ 1 Peter 1:13