Surprises From SCOTUS

     I must admit that I am mildly surprised at the recent decisions by the Supreme Court.  Although I am still skeptical that the Constitution has more influence than Politics in their recent determinations, I sense at least an attempt to fulfill their Judicial obligation in the governing of this nation.
     It's actually very simple.  The Supreme Court's primary role is to interpret the Constitution.  In essence, they interpret the meaning of laws, and oftentimes determine what national policy will be when it applies law to specific disputes.   And that's where Politics often takes precedence.  After all, it is the goal of each incoming President to appoint Justices that will support his political agenda.  It then remains to be seen to whom these supreme lawyers of the land owe their allegiance ... the man and the culture, or the Constitution.

     This week at least, SCOTUS seems to have kept their eyes on the fundamental principles of our Founding document.  First up, and in an astonishingly unanimous ruling, the Court announced that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants.  In writing his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Modern cellphones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet or a purse. A conclusion that inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself may make sense as applied to physical items, but any extension of that reasoning to digital data has to rest on its own bottom."
     Roberts further stated that cell phones bear little resemblance to the type of brief physical search that is common during an arrest; due to their storage capabilities, they are actually mini-computers.  While I applaud this securing of our Fourth Amendment right of undue search and seizure, I'm not entirely comfortable that Roberts wrote that law enforcement could seize and secure a cellphone until a warrant is obtained to search its contents, should they (law enforcement) fear destruction of evidence.  How easy will that be to allege?  But at least we now know to insist on a warrant before turning over our cell phones.
     Secondly, in a stunning decision for a politically-split Court, SCOTUS's first case involving the Constitution’s recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that President Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, without Senate confirmation, were illegal.  The President invoked the Constitution’s provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess. 
     Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.  In effect, they rejected the President's argument that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days – what lawmakers call “pro forma” – were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.
     The Constitution requires that the Senate and House must get the other’s consent for a break lasting longer than three days.  Recess appointments are nothing new; both Presidents Bush and Clinton took advantage of this Constitutional clause.  But Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when Congress explicitly said it was not in recess.  This ruling appears to institute a return to the governing rules of the Constitution.
     Then there was the decision that extending a buffer zone 35 feet from abortion clinic entrances violates the First Amendment rights of protesters.  The Justices were unanimous in their decision.  However, The Boston Globe reports that while the court was unanimous in the outcome, Chief Justice Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to strike down the buffer zone on narrow grounds. In a separate opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Roberts’ opinion for carrying forward ‘‘this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.’’
     The case began when Boston-area grandmother Eleanor McCullen and other abortion opponents sued over the limits on their activities at Planned Parenthood health centers in Boston, Springfield and Worcester, Massachusetts.  Mark Rienzi, who represented the protesters at the Supreme Court, said, ‘‘The government cannot reserve its public sidewalks for Planned Parenthood, as if their message is the only one women should be allowed to hear. Today’s decision confirms that the First Amendment is for everyone, and that the government cannot silence peaceful speakers. That result is good news for Eleanor McCullen, and it is great news for the women she helps.’’  I agree!
     Of course, all eyes are on the expected decision next week on the Hobby Lobby case.  The question this case is seeking to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 that states the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
     At the heart of Hobby Lobby's case is their owner's contention that their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." Because of the religious nature of Hobby Lobby's business, they assert that they are entitled to a religious freedom exemption from the Affordable Care Act's mandate because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — the same exemption that has been afforded to nonprofits with a religious nature.
     Whatever the Court decides, it will most probably not decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act as a whole.  But it would be a step towards protecting religious Americans from the pressure of an autocratic government.  I hope they make the right decision.  For me, God's law always trumps man's law.  We will see.

Acts 5:29     But Peter and the apostles answered and said, "We must obey God rather than men."

Schemes, Secrecy and Conspiratorial Plots

   

     Did you know that there is a movement to legally bypass the Electoral College in the voting process?  Neither did I, because it is silently and stealthily being accomplished behind the scenes and without any mention by the media.  In fact, this campaign is nearly 61% of the way towards accomplishing its goal.
     According to World Net Daily, the National Popular Vote (or NPV bill) is gaining steam as it seeks to obtain the consent of the majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College.  If successful, this scheme would award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the popular vote in each state.
     Here's how it is happening:  The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among various U.S. states and the District of Columbia to replace their current rules regarding the apportionment of presidential electors with rules guaranteeing the election of the candidate with the most popular votes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Coming in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement goes into effect once it is law in states, that together, have an absolute majority of votes (at least 270) in the Electoral College.
     And here's how it gets interesting:  According to Wikipedia, an interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress. 
     Consent can be obtained in one of three ways. First, there can be a model compact and Congress can grant automatic approval for any state wishing to join it, such as the Driver License Compact. Second, states can submit a compact to Congress prior to entering into the compact. Third, states can agree to a compact then submit it to Congress for approval, which, if it does so, causes it to come into effect.
     Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure. In some cases, a compact serves simply as a coordination mechanism between independent authorities in the member states.
     Now, I don't know about you, but it seems as if some how, some way, Congress has to give their consent if it is an interstate compact.  Yet it is implied that once the National Popular Vote bill becomes law in the states, it goes into effect.  So, I'll just admit it ... I'm confused.  But I have no doubt that this is all carefully planned and there is a mechanism to bypass Congress as well as the Electoral College.
     Last month, New York became the 11th state to enact the plan, joining Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, California and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia also has joined the pact.
     Notice anything distinctive, or the common denominator, among this group of states?  They are all states that vote primarily Democratic in the national elections.  So what do they have to gain by implementing the NPV?  The plan simply requires that enough states join through votes in their legislatures along with gubernatorial approval, and the effort would change the way Americans elect the president, without amending the U.S. Constitution.  Remember, it takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.  That would be nearly impossible; it would never receive bipartisan support.
     But the NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree, thereby circumventing the constitutional amendment process.  It's a brilliant plan!  You see, once enough states agree to allot their  electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.
     I don't suppose you'd be surprised to discover that the National Popular Vote group is fully partnered with the Center for Voting and Democracy, or that this group is funded by George Soros, would you?  Didn't think so.  Here's the beauty of the scheme ... only 14 states – those with the largest populations – could decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states.  Which is exactly why our Founding Fathers sought to find a balance between electing our President by popular vote, and electing him by the vote of Congress.  Unlike today, they wanted elections to be fair and equitable.  They saw the danger in allowing the larger states to have more power than the smaller states.
     Even John F. Kennedy rejected this idea when he said, “Direct election would break down the federal system under which states entered the union; which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power.”  I guess that says it all ... and it's all about power ... anyway they can get it.
     Can this plot be stopped?  I honestly don't know.  I guess if the citizenry of each state knew where their governor stood on this matter, we'd have a better idea if this back-door scheme will come to fruition.  But do not doubt that this is the ultimate design, and why the back room powers have been so intent on changing states like Texas from red to blue.  Couple this plot with voter fraud and I don't see how they can be stopped.  If God is the true determiner of who has authority over us, as the book of Romans tells us, then He is surely using them for judgment against our sinful ways.  I cannot disagree that we deserve it.  I pray that He hears the voices of we the people, who repent and ask His forgiveness.  Otherwise, our darkest hour is yet to come.

Psalm 52:2    "All day long your tongue has plotted unrighteousness; like a sharpened razor you have crafted deceit."

Behold A Pale Horse: America Aflame

     It's been over a year and a half since I reviewed an outstanding DVD entitled Behold A Pale Horse, America's Last Chance, which presented an accurate picture of the dangerous path America was on; a path that veered far from her original course, and one that threatened to be her undoing.

     Nothing has changed in the direction of that course.  If anything, the speed towards destruction has accelerated.  So Heartland Pictures and producer Chuck Untersee have upped the ante, so to speak, and re-edited the original version of this fine movie, adding new and powerful testimonies in the hopes of being able to distribute the new film in nationwide theaters.  

     I was privileged to receive a copy of Behold A Pale Horse, America Aflame to review.  Like its predecessor, America Aflame is hard-hitting and often-times a bitter pill to swallow.  This intense new film opens with a riveting interview with Randy Weaver, who was caught in the deadly confrontation with U.S. federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992, in which his 14-year-old son and wife were killed.  It sets the pace for the rest of the film, which chronicles just how much our government is at odds with its citizens.

     Like the first film, I was greatly impressed with the appearance of retired Lt. General Jerry Boykin.  As one of the original members of Delta Force, Boykin served as the Commanding officer during Black Hawk Down and as Commander of the Green Berets.  He also served in the CIA and Deputy Under-Secretary of the Department of Intelligence.  The man has some bragging rights.  But he simply describes himself as "not a Republican or Democrat; but a Conservative and a Christian."  

     So when he speaks, I take notice.  And he certainly got my attention when he said, "America is under judgment.  The Republic is in distress; listen to her cry.  What we are witnessing is spiritual warfare."  He went on to say that what we are seeing is patterns consistent with countries that move towards Marxism.  He then gave the example of nationalizing sectors of the economy; which is what we did with the bailouts of the banking industry.  Then you see a commitment to redistribute the wealth, which is in a nutshell, what the Affordable Care Act is.  This is followed by a discrediting of the opposition and those who would stand up against such policies.

     Lt. General Boykin pointed out that this attempt to harm the reputation of those who disagree has already begun.  "The Department of Homeland Security issued a proclamation to all law enforcement -- federal, state and local -- that future threats to America would come from right-wing Christian groups, Second Amendment groups, pro-life groups, and returning veterans."  He then looks the camera square in the eye, and proclaims, "I'm all four!"  

     Boykin then points out that the next step in the Marxist model is to censor the Pastors.  We've seen a wave of hate crimes legislation that is designed to make it more difficult for pastors to stand up in the pulpit and talk about moral social issues.  And we have already seen efforts to control gun ownership, through the UN Small Arms Treaty.  "They will say it is designed to focus on military weapons.  Do you trust that assessment?", he asks.  As if to underscore his argument, the film presents silent statistics that tell the real story:  

20th Century Gun Control

Soviet Union (1929) - 20 Million Dissidents Exterminated

Turkey (1915) - 1.5 Million Armenians Exterminated

Germany (1938) - 13 Million Jews/Others Exterminated

China (1935) - 20 Million Dissidents Exterminated

Uganda (1970) - 300,000 Christians Exterminated

Cambodia (1975) - 1 million Dissidents Exterminated

     Add it up.  That is 56 million people murdered after their guns were confiscated by tyrannical governments.  I don't need to say more ... but the film does.  It goes on to introduce such Patriots as Dan Fisher, the leader of the modern-day Black Robe Regiment.  Citing the American Revolution's group of the same name, Dan Fisher saw a present need and filled it.  "Today the church is silent; we have lost sight of our spiritual heritage." Through corrupt politicians like LBJ, we the people, have allowed our government to pass legislation in order to silence the church; to slip into the tax code a restriction that any non-profit organization could not speak out in favor of, or against a candidate.

     Likewise the 1960 secularists twisted Thomas Jefferson's words into the popular "separation of church and state" mantra -- which appears in neither the Bible or the Constitution!  What he did say is as follows:  in a private letter written to a group of Baptists, Jefferson stated there was a wall between government and religion to keep the State from interfering with the affairs of the Church.  The implication was exactly the opposite of what the secularists claim ... the Church is to be protected from an overbearing State -- not the other way around!

     Indeed, the Russian dictator Lenin knew that religion was the opium of the people, and Joseph Stalin once stated, "America is like a healthy body; it's resistance 3-fold:  Patriotism, Morality and its Spiritual Life.  If we can undermine these areas, she will collapse from within."  It would appear as if the objectives of Mr. Stalin have been met; the last two have been successfully impaired, and the first is hanging on by a thread.

     As radio host and pastor, Chuck Baldwin says in the film, "The Church must stand in righteous indignation for the Truth or America is finished."  His thoughts are echoed by famed rock guitarist and Patriot, Ted Nugent:  "Our life is a gift from God and we have the right to defend it.  It is our moral, intellectual and spiritual responsibility to defend it from evil-doers."  

     This fine film goes on to touch on all the issues that contributed to our national decline:  Agenda 21, NAFTA, the Federal Reserve System, Globalization, reducing world population, medical control, National ID and RFID technology, secret societies, the One World Government, False Flags, and the de-evaluation of the Dollar.  This film covers it all and backs it all up with the opinions of knowledgeable experts that aren't afraid to state the truth.  

     And the truth is that we have gone from a nation of merchants, craftsman, entrepreneurs, inventors, manufacturers, and skilled workers to a nation of sales clerks, cashiers, stock persons, and home health aides.  The truth is that America was exceptional because we were built on the foundation of the Law of Nature and Nature's God; but we have now made government our God.  The truth is that there are now one-half the number of ranches that existed in this country 20 years ago; and it is the design of Agenda 21 that every county and state boundary will be extinguished.

     So, I can't say enough about this film.  The only suggestion that I could offer is that the run-time might be a tad too long to keep the full interest of a theater audience.  But the information and motivating commentary provided by the host of authors, legislators, constitutional scholars, military leaders, and pastors will inspire and encourage you to fight for our country, as she deserves. 

     I think that we all can identify with Randy Weaver's simple observation:  "I've always loved this country and still do; but we're in deep, deep trouble."  We may not have experienced the devastation that the Weaver family has sustained; but his dedication to his country, even now, should inspire each of us to do our part.  I hope that this film finds its way into theaters and informs and excites the American people to fight for our future.

Pslm 94:16    "Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?"

What Are We To Make Of Justice Scalia's Remarks?

     Earlier this week, remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a shockwave through the blogosphere.  While speaking to law students at the University of Hawaii, Justice Scalia stated that the nation’s highest court was wrong to uphold the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.  But it was his follow-up statement that should alarm us all: he wouldn’t be surprised if the court issued a similar ruling during a future conflict.
     Obviously, this is a subject that would be on the hearts and minds of these particular students.  I'm sure that many of them had family who were subjected to Executive Order 9066, which ordered Americans of Japanese descent into the camps, regardless of citizenship.

     The Washington Times reports that Scalia was responding to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the convictions of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu for violating an order to report to an internment camp.  “Well of course [the Korematsu case] was wrong. And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again."  He then cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
     The law school's dean, Avi Soifer, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection.  But I think what Justice Scolia was suggesting goes far beyond that.  We can be as vigilant as possible, but when your government labels you an "enemy alien", as they did in World War II to the Japanese-Americans, the Italian-Americans, and the German-Americans, laws become instruments of suppression and control.  (PLW's great-grandfather was ordered to a German-American detainment camp in Crystal City, Texas).
     There is a lot of history tied up in this topic, and it would serve us well to know where we've come from in this matter.  Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones.  There was hysteria during the war.  An incident in which an Imperial Japanese Navy pilot crash-landed on a Hawaiian island and was initially assisted by a few island natives, before being over-powered and killed by others, incited the suspicion of all Japanese-Americans.  By law, an "enemy alien" is a citizen of a country which is in a state of conflict with the land in which he or she is located. Usually, but not always, the countries are in a state of declared war.  See how that definition could easily be applied to any citizen who takes issue with the powers that be?
     Fear of "invasions-from-within" have permeated our history.  In 1798, alarm that the French Revolution might spill over into America and find willing sympathizers, led to a prediction by advisors to President John Adams that 100,000 U.S. inhabitants would join a French invading army.  This led to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.  These Acts allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens who were considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States". They also restricted speech which was critical of the federal government.  They were designed under the guise of national security, but many historians say they were designed to decrease opposition to the government.
     You might also find it interesting that three of the bills were either repealed or allowed to expire; the only one that is still in effect is the Alien Enemies Act.  This Act authorized the president to arrest, imprison, or banish any resident alien hailing from a country against which the United States had declared war (1 Stat. 577).  Is it hard to envision that this law could be once again used to "predict" that legal American citizens were, if not enemy aliens, at least enemies of the State?
     No, I believe that Supreme Court Justice Scalia was speaking from a sense of the legal environment and perceived powers of our current political system.  In the past, it has been proven that whenever our Federal powers have felt threatened by the possibility of conflict, citizenship and individual rights do not outweigh the government's suspicions.  Should we expect to feel more secure today?

Psalm 43:1     "Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!"

New American Low: Prison Time For Religious Beliefs?

     I'm not exactly sure why Colorado was picked as a battle state for the Progressive Elites, but once again "The Centennial State" is on the front lines of a Constitutional struggle.  Breitbart.com is reporting that Jack Phillips, a small businessman who owns a bakery in Lakewood, CO is facing a possible prison sentence for exercising his First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion.
     Mr. Phillips was asked by two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, to bake them a cake to celebrate their marriage.  Phillips, being an Evangelical Christian, believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Incidentally, the Constitution of the State of Colorado defines marriage in the same terms.
     You see, Phillips puts his heart and soul into his cake creations, and actually feels that he is a participant in the wedding celebration when he bakes a cake for a couple.  Citing his religious beliefs, he cannot, in good conscience, participate in a celebration that he believes goes against God's commandments.  But apparently Craig and Mullins' consciences are centered more on their desires than God's.  They filed a discrimination lawsuit with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the administrative law judge, Robert Spencer, found in their favor.  [An interesting side note to this case:  these men claimed to have been already married in Massachusetts and wanted to celebrate their wedding in Colorado.  Anybody else suspicious that this was a calculated incident to force this issue in the hopes of changing the State Constitution and setting a precedent?  Just a thought.]

     To be fair, Judge Spencer acknowledged that Jack Phillips "believes the Bible is the inspired word of God; its commands are binding on him; and God’s intention for marriage is the union of one man and one woman."  The Judge also found it relevant to the case that "“Phillips believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”  Up to this point, I think the Judge has pretty much represented the Christian view accurately.  If only he had stopped there....
     Even with his compassion for the baker's position, Judge Spencer went on to say, "Nonetheless, all this fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”  What about the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are forced to provide service because of who they are?  There seems to be two sides to every story, EXCEPT when it comes to Christians and their beliefs.
     In effect, the court of law is saying that Phillips has no right to follow his Christian faith, or any other religion, when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrate gay marriage, even if there is no legal same-sex marriage in the state where the alleged offense took place!  
     So what does this ruling mean for Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who owns his own business?  Under a Colorado law in effect in 2012, Phillips could be sent to jail for up to 12 months for his decision. Although that law has been repealed, it is possible that he could still be criminally prosecuted. At the time the article was written, Phillips has stated that he will continue to refuse to participate in same-sex wedding celebrations, even though he realizes that, both under the now-repealed law, as well as for violating a court order, he could be incarcerated.
     The Alliance Defending Freedom organization, which is a network of over 2,000 Christian lawyers, is defending Mr. Philipps pro-bono, and released this statement:  Jack Phillips is committed to faithfully following Jesus Christ, regardless of the personal cost.  American citizens should not have to live in fear of a prison sentence merely for disagreeing with the government’s opinion. All Americans should remain free to honor God in our lives and in our work. The government has no business threatening Americans with jail time for simply exercising their constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion and speech. Every American, whatever you think about this issue, should fear a government that ignores the First Amendment in order to exercise this kind of power over its citizens.
     Once again, there are obvious questions --- why not just take your business elsewhere?  Why does Jack Phillips have to surrender his legal rights to allow your unconstitutional request?  Where is the support of all Bible-believing Christians in this matter?  I will pray for Jack Phillips that he has the strength of his faith and the conviction of his beliefs in the coming days.  And I will pray for Charlie Craig and David Mullins that they will come to know the tolerance for others that they demand for themselves.  What joy could there be in forcing someone to be a part of your personal celebration?  This case is truly a sad commentary on our culture.

James 5:11    "Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast."

Military Leaders Stand Up For America

     I wondered how long it would take; how long before the truly principled leaders in our military could no longer stand by and watch the Constitution be shredded and defiled.  I've always believed that they honored the oath they took to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

     And now, in light of the drastic changes we have seen in foreign policy, the economy, and the military, WND.com is reporting that two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize our federal government's actions on national security and economic issues.

     Army General Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brigadier General Charles Jones have created a vehicle called “America’s Provisional Leadership Council”, through which they hope to provide an alternate core of leadership; to provide the American people with a choice other the Progressives in either major party.  In essence, the Council hopes to encourage new Independent Constitutional Leadership.

     And these two retired Generals are no lightweights.  Vallely, who today is chairman of the organization Stand Up America, served as the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command. Jones, who is vice-chairman of "The Americans Project" of Stand Up America, held numerous Air Force command positions including a tactical fighter wing, a strategic airlift wing and a special operations group.  "The Americans Project" is at the core of the Leadership Council, and Jones describes it as "a movement, not a new party necessarily. We want candidates to run as Americans first before being a Democrat, Republican or Independent.”

     Furthermore, Vallely says "The Americans Project" will serve as a “citizens’ commission” of prominent Americans to provide advice to legislative and executive branches of government.  And taking it a step further, he recognizes the importance of massive grassroots protests and social networking, which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization.  He cites the “forced resignation” of President Richard Nixon as an example of the power of peaceful citizen involvement.

     In an eight-point paper outlining their strategies and goals, Vallely and Jones call for adherence to the Constitution with strict congressional oversight of all executive actions.  For instance ... In an apparent reference to the cutback in overall U.S. military readiness, they call for a strong national defense but stipulate that “in no way” would the U.S. military ever be used against U.S. citizens, a reference to a growing concern among many Americans.

     In regards to our historic $17 trillion government debt, concerns over continued unemployment and excessive tax rates on businesses and citizens, they have a solution.  Vallely and Jones call for abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service system, the intended result of which would be that “all political plundering of the peoples’ wealth via taxation will be stopped.”  And by abolishing the Federal Reserve, all U.S. government financial and economic functions would be turned back to the U.S. Treasury.  The IRS would be immediately abolished and replaced by a sales tax on specified items for partial financing of the U.S. government.

     But they didn't stop there.  The retired generals condemned the illegal alien “invasion,” which they said would be stopped with a secured border double fence, calling for penalties on employers who hire illegal aliens.

     They also called for the elimination and consolidation of a number of federal agencies, some of which, like the Department of Homeland Security, they say, have exceeded their authority.  There is much more that is outlined in their policy objectives, and it is obvious that these men have done their homework and their passion for the country they long defended, knows no bounds.

     Retired General Vallely said the U.S. faces a battle that is unknown to generations of Americans, and that the fate of the nation is “now in our hands” to enforce the Constitution and “severely limit the federal government and its out-of-control spending.”  He went on to say, “We are in a war for America ... This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers and friends. Be the captains of your souls. I pray for another George Washington to appear within the year and lead us.”

     I applaud these Generals for standing on principle and speaking out; for taking action to restore us to our Constitutional heritage.  But I don't know if even General Washington's considerable prowess, good fortune, and strength of purpose would be enough to overcome our obstacles.  

     I have a feeling that there is much more to this story and those of recent purgings within the military ranks.  I pray that the objectives of these men (and others who will undoubtedly join them), will be met, and I pray for their safety.  I, too, long for a change in direction.  It is yet to be seen if these efforts are too late, or if they align with God's will for our nation.  For now, I will enjoy the moment of hope they offer.

For a comprehensive summary of General Vallely's positions, please click here.  

Hebrews 13:18    "Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things." 

Open Assault On Faith

     World Net Daily featured an interesting article in which legal experts with the Texas-based Liberty Institute have released a new 2013 report that says Religion and Faith, which are guaranteed by our Constitution, are being threatened by a growing agenda to outlaw them.         The report divides the hundreds of pages of  documentation about attacks on religious freedom in America into three categories: attacks in the public arena, in schools and against churches and other religious groups.
     Included in the report, entitled Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility To Religion in America, is this open letter to the American People, which reads in part:

To our fellow Americans,

     Your most basic rights are being gravely threatened. This threat is coming in the form of a tidal wave of government-driven hostility to religious liberty in America. Such hostility is a tsunami which—if it reaches shore—will sweep away all your other liberties.
     Why? The Declaration of Independence, the birth certificate of our nation, acknowledged that all our rights—such as the right to a fair trial and to elect our own government—are “endowed” by a “Creator.” They are therefore “unalienable” and not to be violated by government.
     For that reason, the Founders called “free exercise” of religion, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, our “First Freedom.” They regarded the right of everyday people to express open allegiance to the Creator as a safeguard against government attacks on any rights given by that Creator.
     But what if open and widespread expression of religious freedom—in government, schools, work- places, the military, public places, and more—is eliminated, driven into the shadows of society? What if religion becomes an opinion only to be expressed privately in your home or quietly in your church, if at all? What if religious liberty becomes a poor, subservient tenant of an arbitrary and imperious government landlord?
     If that occurs, then government can erase any of your rights as it sees fit, since government, not the “Creator” cited by the Founders, will be regarded as the ultimate definer, giver or taker of all rights.

     In case you think this is an exaggeration, just consider this sample case:  On Miami’s Metrorail, 82-year-old Emma Anderson was forcibly removed at Brickwell Station by a security guard.  According to a lawsuit, the guard accused her of “publicly singing spiritual hymns.”
     And here are other equally ludicrous cases:
•  A pastor in New York won the right to hold a Bible study in a community center that had banned “religious” events.
•  A church in Dallas was ejected from an empty high school where it had been holding Sunday services, even though the church had a valid lease.
•  The city of Plano, Texas, tried to prevent WillowCreek Fellowship Church from opening because of the angle of the roof of its church building.
•  An Ohio library ordered a Christian group not to meet there to talk about traditional marriage, unless advocates for homosexuality also were present.
•  An African-American church in Texas was billed for property taxes after its building burned down. The assessor’s argument was that members no longer could meet on the property, so it no longer was tax-exempt.
•  The NFL threatened churches showing the Super Bowl on their big screen televisions.
•  A church in Brookville, Pa., was fined for opening its parsonage to three homeless men to live there.
•  A minister’s invitation to the National Prayer Luncheon was revoked because he was critical of open homosexuality in the military.
•  An Alabama student was ordered not to wear a cross necklace, and a valedictorian in Iowa was ordered to give a secular speech.
•  Cheerleaders were barred from putting Bible verses on banners at football games
•  A third-grader was told he could not include a religious message along with goodies he was handing out to classmates
•  A student wasn’t allowed to say “Jesus” when asked what Easter meant.  (I suppose they only want our kids relating the Bunny Rabbit version).
     These are just a few of the hundreds of cases that the Liberty Institute is representing across the country.  In full disclosure, the report is a joint effort of the Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council, which a year ago was the target of a now-convicted domestic terrorist who declared he wanted to kill as many people as he could.   In fact, the perpetrator, Floyd Lee Corkins, told investigators that he got the idea of targeting FRC from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which routinely labels organizations that support traditional marriage instead of the gay agenda as hate organizations.  But for those who would say this report is biased, I would suggest that the influence of such groups as the SPLC shows where the real bias lies.
     But there is a ray of hope in this discouraging report.  It seems that, “While [the report] shows that attacks on religious liberty are dramatically increasing in the United States, both in the frequency and in the severity of the attacks, this survey also shows that those persons and organizations, like Liberty Institute, that stand up for religious liberty win -- when they fight."
     And that is the real message of this blog post.  When we, who value our religious liberty, take a stand and fight back, we can stop this secular, anti-faith movement.  But we can no longer take our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights for granted.  We have failed to safeguard them when they have come under attack, and the Enemy now has a taste of victory.
     Freedom of Religion .... It was at the very heart of the founding of this country.  Fifty years ago, every schoolchild learned that fact as soon as he could read an American history lesson.  It was why the first colonists set foot on this continent.  It's now time to re-establish this most precious liberty, and face each challenge with determination and purpose.

James 1:25   "But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."

How Many Constitutional Rights Do We Really Have?

     I read a very lengthy and informative article on Washington's Blog, that pretty much said our Constitutional rights are virtually gone.  I highly recommend that you read it in its entirety, but for the sake of brevity and to give you something to contemplate, I will give you the scorecard that the author assigned to our Bill of Rights.

     First Amendment:  Protects speech, assembly, religion and the press.  The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.  The Secret Service can now arrest anyone protesting near the President, and there are countless numbers of things that will get you labeled a terrorist; including using social media, being part of political movements, paying cash at an internet café, wearing a hoodie, videotaping police officers, liking the Founding Fathers, opposing GMO foods, and being a Christian.
     Second Amendment:  The right to keep and bear arms.  The attempt by gun control advocates to ban certain weapons and magazines, and put more restrictions on gun owners (and laws on the books), says it all.
     Third Amendment:  Prohibits the government from forcing people to house soldiers.  Score one for the people!  We have an amendment still intact!
     Fourth Amendment:  Prevents unlawful search and seizure.  The NSA ... need I say more?  And the lock-down and involuntary door-to-door searches in Boston after the marathon bombing are unraveling this Amendment quite well.
     Fifth Amendment:  Addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury.  The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen or U.S. citizen without any due process.... drone strikes come to mind.
     Sixth Amendment:  Guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney.  The various cases involving the silencing of government whistleblowers testifies to the "secrets" being kept by our leaders.  And then there was the mysterious case against that film-maker blamed for the Benghazi debacle.  It is also hard to trust the justice system anymore; judges have lost their independence, so who's minding the store?
     Seventh Amendment:  Guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases.  This amendment still appears to be intact, but severe budget cuts to the courts threaten to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of justice.
     Eighth Amendment:  Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.  Once again, government whistleblowers are under scrutiny, and being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.  And let's not even mention the tactics that are becoming far too commonplace, such as indefinite detention.
     Ninth Amendment:  Provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution.  Just exactly what these "inherent rights" might be, will be a topic of intense discussion.  But for the sake of argument, could we consider the following?  Let's start with economic freedom to pursue our lives; safe food and clean drinking water (without being forced to ingest fluoride or genetically modified sources); a choice when it comes to vaccinating our children or purchasing health insurance.  Those are just for starters.
     Tenth Amendment:  Powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual.  Do you think the government really cares about "the consent of the governed"?  Do you feel their primary objective is to protect you ... or to control you?  The Federal government consistently tramples the separation of powers by interfering with the states' abilities to manage their own business.  The Federal Reserve Bank and IRS are just two agencies that have superceded their jurisdiction.
     So let's be honest, folks.  Do you really think that we still enjoy all the Rights that our Founding Fathers intended with this unique document?  Because from where I sit, it appears to me that the Ten Amendments that compose our Bill of Rights are in serious jeopardy of being trampled on, if not being subjected to downright attack.  Will they stand up to such a concerted effort to dismantle them?  We better hope so, because they are all that stand between us and undeniable repression.

Isaiah 33:15-16    "He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises gain from fraud and from oppression, who shakes his hand free from the taking of bribes, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes to avoid looking upon evil; [Such a man] will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; water for him will be sure."

Will Texas Become The Battleground For Religious Freedom?

     That question could soon be answered when the San Antonio City Council meets on a proposed change to its nondiscrimination ordinances that apparently will discriminate against all who take the Bible at its word and follow it.
     Here are the details, according to an article on World Net Daily:  The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”  In case you can't guess, it is the "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" clauses that have been added.

     But here's the problem; the change to the ordinance would create a penalty for those who have ever exhibited a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s opinions on abortion or homosexuality, for instance, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.  That means, according to one church leader, "The ordinance … says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias –  without defining what a bias is, or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract.  Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract."  So will there be witch hunts, á la Paula Deen, for any so-called biased statements in an applicant's past?  Sure sounds like it to me!
     Church leaders say it allows the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding unBiblical practices from serving on city boards.”
     For example, if a person publicly expresses their religious belief that abortion is a sin – even if this expression is at a church service – that person could be denied economic access to city government.  It's only a hop, skip and a jump to the suggestion that businesses run by people of faith will be subject to criminal penalties if they refuse to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs.  Think about the bakery owners who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.  Why should they be penalized, if there is a bakery that is willing to provide the service?  Shouldn't both bakeries be allowed to conduct their businesses according to their consciences, not the State's?
     And what happened to all the concern about "Separation of Church and State"?  Isn't that what the Left wants?  If you can be penalized in the marketplace for making a statement in your church about a religious belief, where is the separation?  Aren't they creating a connection between Church and State?  Isn't this the religious test for involvement in government that they so loudly protest, and Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Constitution explicitly prohibits?
     And I think it is no accident that these kinds of tests to the Constitution, both federal and state, are being planned in Texas.  If the Enemy can defeat one of the strongest states for personal liberty and religious freedom, then the fate of the entire country is in jeopardy.  Satan has made his move.  Now let's see how our Mighty God will outmaneuver him!

Galatians 5:1   "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."
   
   

Two Speeches; Two Reactions

     This is the season of high school graduations, and most of them are forgettable .... long lines of graduates crossing the stage and boring speeches by school administrators and class officers that will soon be forgotten.  But two of those speeches are likely to have long-lasting ramifications.
      Speech #1:   Roy Costner IV, valedictorian of Liberty High School (how appropriate!) in South Carolina, stunned the audience when he began his speech, as follows:

     
"I want to thank those that we look up to, they have helped carve and mold us into the young adults that we are today. I’m so glad that both of my parents led me to the Lord at a young age,” he said. “And I think most of you will understand when I say –  Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name.  Thy kingdom come ....."  Well, I think you know how the speech continues.

Speech #2:  Remington Reimer, valedictorian of Joshua, Texas (again befitting this story!) also gave a speech that caused quite a reaction.  Here is a portion of his speech:

"We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished. Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you."

    Two very brave young men, who experienced very different results when they took a stand for their beliefs.  In the case of Roy, he enjoyed thunderous applause as he began the Lord's Prayer, and if you watch the video of his speech, you can even see smiles and consenting nods from the school officials sitting behind him.  In fact, the school has no plans to punish the former student for his actions.  That won't stop atheist action groups from filing suit, of course, but Mr. Costner wasn't afraid to challenge them.

     Neither was Remington, but, alas, he didn't receive such a positive response.  As soon as he uttered the above words, his microphone was cut off and his speech ended.  In this instance, it wasn't the invocation of his faith that was objected to; in fact, that part of his speech had been pre-approved.  It was when he veered from his prepared remarks and cited the Constitution and his right to free speech.
     While you may think cutting off his mic was over the top, there is more to this story.  His father, Todd, is a doctorate-level physics and math teacher at the same high school his son attends.  And Remington will be a freshman at the Naval Academy come fall.  Apparently, the principal of the high school, the day after the silenced speech, allegedly threatened to write a personal letter to the Naval Academy and strip Remington of all honors related to character.
     Of course, the principal denies the charge, and the Reimer family is not happy that the situation has escalated to this level.  They feel that if a disclaimer that was left out of the graduation program had been included, it might have alleviated the discord: “the content of each student speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the District.”  But would it have?
     Both of these incidents are a reflection of the rigid policies and regulations that threaten our society.  While Americans are becoming more aware of the threat against our faith and are willing to stand up against authoritarian policies, it is also becoming quite apparent that our Constitutional rights are being dismissed and reduced.  By refusing to remain silent, we invite both censorship and suppression.
     You have to decide for yourself if you think these young men were wrong in varying their speeches according to school policy; or if those very policies go against our personal liberties and deserve to be challenged.  I tend to agree with Remington's father, who said, “One of the lessons we have learned in all of this is: Well-intentioned people who don’t know policy/the Constitution can often implement rules/laws that infringe upon the rights of others. This is a microcosm of what is happening in our nation at large.”

1 Peter 3:15-16    "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

They Would Sell Our Rights Cheap!

     As is my usual custom, I grabbed a quick lunch before getting back to my writing, and sat down to watch a few minutes of Fox News to see what they deemed newsworthy.  I wasn't surprised to find that Megan Kelly was steeped in the "story du jour" of the kidnappings in Ohio.  I almost dropped my sandwich when I heard her asking an Investigative Attorney if it wouldn't have been prudent to have gone door to door in that community and searched every basement, garage, and attic --- especially when you looked at the circumstances, and all the evidence was laid out and authorities realized that three girls had all gone missing from the same neighborhood.  She then pointed to a map on the screen that showed the proximity of each girl's home within a several block area.   

     "Wouldn't that have been enough to conduct a house-to-house search?" she asked.  "I mean, I know we have a Fourth Amendment, and that is not likely to go anyway anytime soon, considering where we are as a country today...".  As her dumbstruck guest picked his jaw up off the floor, he very calmly informed her that the police could not enter any house without permission, or a search warrant and probable cause.  

     Ms. Kelly then tried to cover her tracks by explaining, "Of course, we don't want the police just coming into our homes anytime they want ... after all, we still have the Bill of Rights".  Wait!  Didn't you just say they should be able to do just that, based on a hunch and a map?  It was such a blatant smack-down of our Fourth Amendment rights and quite acceptable to this Elite so-called "journalist".  She seemed to imply that "where we are as a country today", in terms of those very Rights, was subject to change, and in reality, probably should change.  I mean, how will we ever be able to protect all the future sixteen-year-old Amanda Berrys if we can't trample on everyone else's rights in the process?

     This is the same logic -- and the same type of newscaster -- who didn't bat an eye when the fully militarized SWAT teams shut down Boston as they intimidated homeowners in their search for the Marathon Bombers.   House-to-house searches were done, in total violation of the Fourth Amendment, and under the guise of "protecting the populace". 

     So I have to ask myself, "Why would the common folk of Boston and an Elitist like Megan Kelly both be willing to forego 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....' as affirmed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution?"  I guess the good people of Boston have forgotten their history.  Warrantless searches have long been a bone of contention, going all the way back to the Revolutionary War when agents of the British Empire conducted warrantless searches on homes of colonists, which was viewed as an abuse of power.    

The idea of personal liberty was so dear, that our ancestors would never have traded their right to protect themselves or their property for a suggestion of safety.  Yet we saw modern day Bostonians never even question the government's access to their homes.  And it's my guess that Megan Kelly doesn't have a problem with warrantless searches as long as it happens to the "little people"; after all she is upper class and her social strata would have no reason to fear such mistreatment from authorities.  It's alright for the "ordinary" citizen to be subjected to this infringement on their rights if it removes the lowliest from their midst.

     Are we really that blind to the subtleties of tyranny?  Our Bill of Rights is what makes us more than mere serfs to a lord and master.  It stands between us and an over-reaching, authoritarian government.  And I would remind all Americans of this famous saying by Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  And unfortunately, I fear that's exactly where we are headed ... we will allow our personal freedoms to be dismantled, bit by bit, as the militarization of our law enforcement grows and the talking heads convince us "it is for the good of all".  

     Ms. Kelly couldn't quite camouflage her bias.  And neither can I.  So I ask you, "Considering where we are as a country today, will you forfeit your God-given liberties for the fickle promise of security by the State?"  If not, then know your rights and be prepared to defend them.  If you don't safeguard them, no one else will!

Psalm 122:7     Peace be within your walls and security within your towers!

  

Grandma's Home-made Jellies and A Free Bible

   

     Here is one of the more ludicrous anti-Christian moves by our Federal Government:  It would seem that since 2011, Louisiana resident Shirley Elliott has sold produce and homemade jellies at Thibodaux Farmer’s Market near Jean Lafitte National Historic Park in Louisiana.  Now, anyone who has tasted the distinguished delicacies of the Bayou State, knows just how special they are.  But it wasn't just the homemade jellies that Shirley was offering.  She also gave away Bibles to anyone who wanted one.
     But apparently an overzealous Park Ranger felt the Bibles could not be distributed near the Park because Shirley's booth was "on federal property."  But Shirley wasn't going to be discouraged that easily.  She knew that Park regulations allow vendors to sell locally grown produce and other homemade goods and handcrafts. Regulations also allow for “non-profit organizations with missions related to … education, youth and/or nutrition” to participate in the market on an equal basis as vendors.
     That's when Liberty Counsel, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom got involved.  They provide pro bono assistance and representation on cases like Shirley's.  “A decision to allow free distribution of the things mentioned above, while disallowing and requiring the removal of Bibles and other religious literature … would be improper and discriminatory,” Liberty Counsel attorney Richard Mast said in a statement to the superintendent of Jean Lafitte National History Park.
     It didn't take long for the acting superintendent of the Park to back down.  Two days later, he responded, saying, “We regret the misunderstanding regarding the distribution of religious materials.”
      The superintendent said the National Park Service “respects the right of vendors to make free religious materials available.  Please assure Ms. Elliott that she is welcome to offer free Bibles at her produce and homemade jellies table.”

     What's amazing to me is the audacity with which every federal employee feels he/she can limit the exercise of a citizen's First Amendment right.  Perhaps they are emboldened by the ACLU's win whereby a portrait of Jesus that has hung in a southern Ohio school district since 1947 was taken down because of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a student and two parents, calling the portrait an unconstitutional promotion of religion in a public school.  The “Head of Christ,” a popular depiction of Jesus, had been in an entranceway’s “Hall of Honor” in a middle school building that was formerly the high school. It was near portraits of dozens of prominent alumni and people with local roots such as the late four-term Ohio Gov. James Rhodes.
     But the costs of battling the federal lawsuit proved too much for the school district, and the portrait was taken down.  “At the end of the day, we just couldn’t roll the dice with taxpayer money,” Superintendent Phil Howard told The Associated Press. “When you get into these kinds of legal battles, you’re not talking about money you can raise with bake sales and car washes. It’s not fair to take those resources from our kids’ education.”
     But whether it is a sentimental portrait or a free book, the deceived of this world are strengthened in their fight to keep us from expressing our faiths and belief in Jesus.  It is crucial that every Christian not be bullied by those, whether from the public or private sector, that would seek to remove Christianity from the public square.
     As the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel so eloquently stated, "“It is the right of every American to advocate a religious viewpoint. Offering books or literature to willing recipients is protected by the First Amendment.  Mere disagreement with the content of the speech is not sufficient to deny those constitutional rights."  We must not back down!

Psalm 43:1     "Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people; from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!"

The Good Ol' Boys Just Got Outplayed

     Yesterday, the buzz among the New Media was all about Senator Rand Paul's filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan as Director of the CIA.  This was interesting for several different reasons.

     First of all, the Mainstream Media treated the event as insignificant; not worthy of coverage by real news outlets.  Granted, Senator Paul's filibuster of nearly 13 hours didn't come close to Senator Strom Thurmond's filibustering of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes; or the group of Southern Democratic Senators who filibustered for a collective 75 hours in protest of the Civil rights Act of 1964.  Yet, I would venture that Paul's reasons for filibustering were far more serious than those who came before him.  This time there was more at stake than the right to vote.  This time the Senator wanted answers to some very important questions about our fundamental right to freedom.
     And that brings us to another reason this particular filibuster should have been the lead story on every media outlet.  The filibuster was not so much about John Brennan's qualifications to be CIA Director, as it was about needing clarification as to the how, when, where, and under what circumstances Brennan, the Justice Department, and the White House think they have the right to kill American citizens -- in our homeland -- with drone strikes.  Don't you think those are some important questions that should be answered before giving a "yes" vote on this man's nomination?  Don't you think that the American people --- the very people who might become targets of these drone strikes! --- deserve to know what limits the CIA Director and his bosses see on their power?

     As you know by now, this series of events came about because Senator Paul sent a letter to nominee Brennan, requesting additional information concerning the Administration's views about whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."  What he got was a thinly disguised "brush off" by AG Holder, in which he stated, "The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."  Then comes this chilling statement:  "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States..... Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority."  If you didn't gasp after reading this response, then I suggest you go back and read it again!
     What rightfully concerned Senator Paul was the fact that the AG appeared to see himself as the ultimate authority in determining the President's authority; not the Constitution!  This further concerned Senator Ted Cruz, who insisted that AG Holder clear up the confusion concerning his statement in the letter.  In a strongly worded round of questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Cruz asked a simple legal question: Does the Constitution allow a US citizen, on US soil, who doesn't pose an imminent threat, to be killed by the US government?  It was clear throughout the exchange that the AG did not want to give a definitive answer.

     And that folks, is what was at the heart of Senator Paul's filibuster.  And every American should thank him for having the courage to take a stand.  Because he would not back down in demanding an answer, he effectively used the filibuster to bring this issue to the attention of the American people.  How many other nominations have gone unquestioned and unchallenged?  For the first time in a long time, I actually felt as if a member of the US Congress was actually looking out for us; was actually putting the Constitution before his own self-promotion.   
     And the added benefit?  Senator Paul's approach to this issue was not along party lines.  In fact, he had some support from across the aisle, while the Old Guard of the GOP actually denounced his efforts on behalf of the people.  I found it disturbing and repugnant that John McCain attempted to take his younger colleague to the wood shed.  In denouncing the demand for answers, McCain said, "The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms."  Senator Lindsay Graham made the asinine statement, "“I do not believe that question deserves an answer," referring to Senator Paul's asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home.  As if this ridiculous comment wasn't enough, Graham announced that he had originally decided to vote against Brennan's nomination, but said the filibuster has now actually pushed him to support Mr. Brennan.  Excuse me, Senators, but you no longer speak for me!
     And by your remarks, you have just made yourselves irrelevant.  There's a new crowd in DC, now, and their numbers are growing.  Senators like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tim White, Mike Lee and Pat Toomey stood with Rand Paul and helped him hold the floor during the filibuster, while Senators McCain and Graham attended an old-style private dinner at the White House.  Now tell me ..... which group do you have more confidence in?  The men who bolstered the Constitution on our behalf, or the ones who met in secret behind closed doors?
     And finally, I just have to commend Senator Paul for taking this drone controversy and using it to make us look at the political, legal and moral ramifications inherent in Government with a capital "G".  He brought our focus back to the fundamental reason for government --- it is not to be used to exercise control over specific groups of citizens, but to promote our individual rights to live freely.  That's what the Constitution is all about; limited government and personal freedom.  There was a new and refreshing sound coming from the floor of the Senate the other night.  And it was music to my ears!

Proverbs 11:3    "The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity."




   
   
   

Revisited: Our County Sheriffs and the Constitution

     It is not my practice to repeat the subject of a previous post, but there is an issue that is becoming more relevant by the day, and what I wrote nearly a year ago bears restating.  In a post titled What One Man Can Do, I introduced you to Sheriff Richard Mack, who, in 1993, filed a landmark lawsuit against President Bill Clinton and the U.S. Government over their intrusion on States Rights.  You can read the history of that lawsuit in my previous post.  (By the way, the suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Sheriff Mack won!)

     In that post, Sheriff Mack laid out the Constitutional duties of our County Sheriffs.  If you haven't read it, please do.  You need to be aware that your County Sheriff is the last line of defense against a tyrannical and over-reaching Federal Government.  And if you have read it; read it again ... and pass it on to someone who needs this information. It is incumbent upon each of us to know the Tenth Amendment and the specified limits on government entities:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

     In short, if powers are not specifically delegated to the Federal Government, or the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit them [powers] to State governments, then those powers belong to the States  or to the people .... not the Federal Government!  
     When I wrote the post last May, there was a growing sense that gun control was on the horizon. And Sheriff Mack was criss-crossing the country, educating the populace of their rights.  Now, nearly a year later, we've blown right past that issue, and there is talk of gun bans, universal background checks, and even gun registration.  That is why this topic needs to be revisited!
     Within the last year, Sheriff Mack has formed an organization called Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA).  Their mission is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out their duties in accordance with their Oaths of Office.  As of this writing, 312 Sheriffs have publicly proclaimed their stance.  They will support the oath they took to defend the Constitution, and to defend the Bill of Rights as it pertains to their citizens.  Let's hope that the number grows.

     But Sheriff Mack is not alone, thank God!  Last week, four brave Sheriffs took to the public airwaves and appeared on The Blaze, Glenn Beck's TV network.  The Sheriffs represented the states of Oregon, Wisconsin and Missouri.  All spoke boldly about their duty to defend the Constitution and the rights of the citizens to bear arms.  They were passionate and firm in their resolve.  They all stated that they felt the Constitution was under attack and the Government was overstepping its bounds.  All announced their intentions to safeguard the rights of the citizens of their counties and to defend and protect the Constitution.  They also realize that pressure may be brought to bear against them in the near future, but all felt it was time to take a stand.  Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon said, "If not us, then who?"
     Sheriff David Clarke, of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin has received criticism for his controversial ad in which he urges citizens of his county to get training and be prepared to protect themselves.  He sees the value in "partnering" with his constituents to keep their communities safe.  In the end, Sheriff Clarke says it's "about Liberty".
     And at the end of the roundtable discussion, host Beck seemed to sum up the sheriffs' collective conscience:  “You have a right to own the firearms of your choice,” Beck said. “That right shall not be infringed. It’s not about hunting, it’s not about target practice, it’s not even about rape or home defense. It is about an armed public being necessary to keep people free. An unarmed public is a tyrant’s playground.”  
     These brave Sheriffs, along with the growing number of their fellow law enforcement officers are carrying on the legacy that Sheriff Richard Mack initiated back in 1993.  It IS an issue of States Rights!  As Sheriff Mack has pointed out, "The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to police exactly four areas: treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting."  Anything beyond that is within the jurisdiction of local and state authorities.
     The bottom line is this:  The Sheriff is the chief law enforcement authority in most counties, and he is elected by the ultimate power source, We The People. These lawmen know their duty and to whom they owe allegiance.  That have read the Constitution, and nowhere in it do they find authorization for the federalization of law enforcement.  In fact, they might argue, the Constitutional system gives the local police higher authority than any federal agent when it comes to enforcing the laws in their counties.
     So get to know your County Sheriff.  Find out where he stands on these issues and how he will respond if called upon to violate your Constitutional rights.  You have a right to know if you will be protected.  Sheriff Clarke is correct.  It is a partnership, and together we can stand for Liberty.

Proverbs 29:2     "When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan."