College "Speech Codes" Mandated by Feds

     This last week, we got a chilling perspective of just how corrupt the moral and intellectual foundation of Progressivism really is.  We have the false narrative of Benghazi, which showcases a "fantasy" story of what happened the night of September 11th, 2012 and has yet to disclose the real truth behind our government's machinations in Libya.... any story will do as long as it continues the foreign policy spin that Al Queda was "on the ropes" and the Arab Spring was successful in spreading democracy across the Middle East.  The American people must not know the truth so close to the election!

     The IRS scandal shows just how fixated the Progressives are on stifling expression by anyone who opposes them.  They fancy themselves more enlightened than us "rednecks"; us "clingers".  They effectively used Alinsky methods to intimidate and shut down those groups who still mistakenly revere the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, while stubbornly revolting against an ideology that promotes an agenda of "collective social justice".  And they don't care if their methods are illegal or immoral; any means are justifiable as long as they end up getting the result they want.  Shut down the Tea Party any way you can!
     And finally, there is the issue of the AP wiretaps.  The Department of Justice, in full Progressive mode, loudly claims its rights to protect classified information, even if it means trampling on the First Amendment and the rights of a free press.  Did they go through proper and legal channels to obtain the AP phone records, and did they take measured steps to narrowly define their subpoenas, so as not to be oppressive or punishing in their actions?  That doesn't seem to be the way of Progressives.
     So now the DOJ and the Department of Education (DOE) seem to be emboldened by these tactics and have forged ahead with a new agenda against the First Amendment.  It seems that a letter from these two agencies has been sent out to all colleges that receive federal funding, mandating the institution of "speech codes."
     According to the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE),“The letter states that ‘sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”‘ including ‘verbal conduct’ (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need NOT even be offensive to an ‘objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation’—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.”  How ridiculous is that?  And how confusing?  There is no standard by which sexually harassing speech is measured; anyone can say that anything offends them, and the speaker can be punished!  The free speech rights of both students and faculty will be effectively hog-tied!  (Excuse me, my inner redneck is showing ... for you pointy-headed Progressive elites, that means impeded or greatly hindered!)

     The joint letter from the DOJ and the DOE was sent to the University of Montana in response to a year-long investigation by both Departments into the mishandling of several sexual assault cases by the University.  The Progressives in the government saw the opportunity and took it.  They used this investigation as the basis for broadening the federal government's rules about sexual harassment and free speech on campus.  After addressing the University's mismanagement of the sexual assault issue, the letter went on to state that only a stunningly broad definition of sexual harassment—"unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature"—will now satisfy federal statutory requirements. This explicitly includes "verbal conduct," otherwise known as speech.
     Furthermore, in their standard modus operandi, they didn't let this "crisis go to waste".  The letter also stated that because of what the DOJ and DOE were able to determine from the University of Montana case, their findings should serve as a "blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country."
     In an Op-Ed written in the Wall Street Journal, FIRE President, Greg Lukianoff, stated, "By eliminating this "reasonable person" standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere allegations—the right to be offended has been enshrined in a federal mandate."  He goes on to relate this disturbing fact, "The letter further states that campuses have "an obligation to respond to student-on-student harassment" even when that harassment occurs off-campus. In some circumstances, the letter says, universities may take "disciplinary action against the harasser" even "prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution." In plain English: Students can be punished before they are found guilty of harassment."
     Whether it is the Common Core curriculum in our public education, or the idiocy of these "speech codes" on college campuses, it is obvious that Progressives are intent on lowering the standards of American Education and inhibiting the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  It's all about control and power.  If a failed foreign policy narrative, or a competing political and social ideology, or even a Constitutional law gets in the way of furthering their agenda, then anything is on the table in order to reach their goal, which is subjugation of the populace.
     If you are the parent of a college-age student, how do you prepare them to safeguard their freedom of speech?  Any university or college that attempts to fight back against this mandate is threatened with termination of federal funds.  How can academic freedom continue to survive?  I think we know the answer to the question; and that, my friend, is the real end game.

1 Peter 2:16    "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."

   
     

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!

  

The Second Amendment Survives .... For Now

     There were nine proposed changes to a gun control bill presented to the Senate yesterday and two of the more prominent ones failed to pass.  The vote on the so-called Manchin-Toomey amendment was 54 in favor, 46 against — failing to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to move ahead.  The Senate’s failure to expand background checks means the three pillars of President Obama’s gun control agenda have stalled. The chamber also rejected Dianne Feinstein's much ballyhooed proposal to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

     Needless to say, the anti-gun lobby is less than pleased.  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn't hide his anger, "Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington."  That's kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it Mayor?  After all, your hired thugs have been largely responsible for the stealthy attack on Colorado's Second Amendment rights.  He went on to say, "The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t forget."  First of all, your ever-expanding coalition of supporters have been exposed.  Secondly, I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'm calling you on your statistic of 90% of Americans want the same thing you do.  An early April poll by Gallup revealed that gun control issues are not exactly at the top of American's priority list, scoring only 4%; far below the Economy, Unemployment and Dissatisfaction with the Government.
     Although Harry Reid voted against the gun control issues, don't get your hopes up that he has suddenly put the liberties of Americans before politics.  Mocking gun rights, Reid stated that he still feels gun control is "more important than preventing imagined tyranny."  Oh, and by the way, having voted against it, Reid can now reintroduce the amendment at a future date.  And Madame Feinstein herself, criticized her Senate colleagues and challenged them to "show some guts."
    And while we're talking about playing politics, Vice-President Biden feigned tears at a White House Press Conference, and the President himself, couldn't avoid staging a convenient photo op.  Surrounded by Newton citizens and Gabby Gifford, he went so far as to claim that "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.  This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose."  Just like the Affordable Health Care Act, right?
     While I am pleased with this momentary setback to the attempt to rob me of my Second Amendment rights, I know that the fight is not over.  Expect back room deals, arm twisting and more "events" to keep this issue at the forefront of this Administration's agenda.  I truly believe it was proactive citizens who called their Senators that made the difference on this vote.  If the American people ever back down on this push to eradicate our rights, honest citizens will find themselves defenseless.  Round One goes to us.

Luke 11:21-22      "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder."
   
   

What's In That Package?

   

     Apparently, America's two biggest shipping companies are finding themselves under the microscope in a new line of federal probing.  Both FedEx and UPS have become embroiled in a controversial reach by the Feds.  What is their alleged crime?   They did not flag shipments of illegally prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.  Furthermore, criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by either company.
      Evidently, FedEx has been compliant in the past with helping federal authorities crack down on criminal activities, but a spokesman says this time things were quite different.  Patrick Fitzgerald, of FedEx states, “What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level of criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role.  We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”
     So what's really behind this smokescreen?  “At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” Fitzgerald said.

     Bingo!  I think he may have just touched on what's really going on here.  In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the companies to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald said protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.  This is just one more attack on the privacy rights of individual citizens.  "This [alleged pharmacy scam] really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” Fitzgerald said.
     It's not as if FedEx is refusing to help stop illegal activity.  They have gone as far as offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.  What about any individual who happens to get caught in the crossfire?  What if an innocent citizen is falsely accused of illegal activity for receiving a perfectly legal shipment?  Will they have the ability to sue the government over a lack of due process?  Somehow, I think not.
     But here's the absurd reality of this situation:  It leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.  Fitzgerald goes on to explain, “The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes --- without providing them a no-fly list.  What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”
     But I think we are all beginning to get the picture.  It's not really about illegal pharmaceuticals.  That's just smoke and mirrors.  It's just another tactic for setting a precedent to strip us of still more privacy.  And Fitzgerald questions why no other private carriers are part of the probe.  He's not yet ready to allege that it is a scheme to boost the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.
     Now here's the bad news and the good news .... UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government, but FedEx is fighting this all the way.  “Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” Fitzgerald said.  It will be interesting to see how long they can hold out while protecting our privacy, and what steps might be taken to weaken their position.  I applaud FedEx for their bold stand.

Isaiah 59:14         "So justice is driven back, and righteousness
stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter."

Oops! He Did It Again!

     Just a quick post to give you something to think about .... did you know that on the evening before millions of Americans took off work to celebrate Good Friday and the Easter weekend, that yet another Executive Order was written and implemented?  That's right; it's become nearly routine that every time we are distracted by a holiday, we wake up to another directive administered from the shadows.
     This time, the official title of this EO is Establishment of the Presidential Commission of Election Administration.  According to the official White House release of this Presidential Order, the mission of this appointed Commission will be to "identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency." 

     Now, I don't know about you, but I wasn't aware that our present system needed any manipulation.  And anytime the President of the United States decides to get involved in national elections by self-appointing a committee to make sure "all eligible voters" get to vote, it smacks of electioneering and over-stepping a bipartisan boundary.  This Executive Order boldly side steps any Congressional legislation or national debate, and creates a federal Commission (appointed by the President) that shall consider, ”the number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places; the training, recruitment, and number of poll workers;  the efficient management of voter rolls and poll books; voter education; and voting accessibility."
     Critics of this move go so far as to say it is an effort to nationalize elections; to put into place election officials that would have a biased and prejudiced agenda in favor of the party that appointed them.  One local election official from Virginia had this to say: "The genius of American government is rooted in its separation of powers – not only between the branches of federal government, but also between the levels of government in general – state and Federal.  When we have a commission comprised only of individuals appointed by one man, from one party, from only one branch of the government, that will be setting rules and making suggestions as to how local elections should be managed it’s beyond alarming – it’s just plain wrong.”  As far as I'm concerned, wrong is too mild a word.
     I'm one of those who were skeptical of the last election returns; was I really expected to believe that there were voting districts and even entire counties where Mitt Romney did not receive one single vote?  Really?  And now we have a Presidentially-mandated commission whose sole purpose is to oversee elections?
     Some of the more, shall I say, disturbing "considerations" this Commission has been asked to look at are:
(iv) the efficient management of voter rolls and poll books;
(viii) management of issuing and processing provisional ballots in the polling place on Election Day;
(ix) the issues presented by the administration of absentee ballot programs;
(x) the adequacy of contingency plans for natural disasters and other emergencies that may disrupt elections.
     Hmmm, we've managed to hold elections for lo, these 200-plus years, and now it is necessary to manage these issues?  Of course, it all looks and sounds legitimate and non-threatening when you read the legal language.  But when you read between the lines such as.....  "The Commission shall hold public meetings and engage with Federal, State, and local officials, technical advisors, and nongovernmental organizations, as necessary to carry out its mission" ..... it's those couple of extra words, as necessary, that are troubling to me.  Call me paranoid, but it makes me nervous that yet another Executive Order has slid under the radar and could effect the honesty of future elections.  The right to self-govern is a fundamental principle upon which this country was founded!

Isaiah 9:7      Of the greatness of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

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."

Me and Sam Adams: A History Lesson

     You have heard it said that our Constitution and our Founding Fathers are irrelevant to the modern age.  But if you've read my blog for any length of time, you know that I am obsessed with this time period in our nation's history.  I am in such awe of how this country came to be, and admire the men and women who stood up to a tyrant king and fought to establish something that had never existed before ... a country based on "the natural rights of man".  I hope to show you today that those sentiments are just as pertinent as they were nearly two and a half centuries ago.
     Perhaps you are familiar with the fact that the Founding Fathers were fond of using the terms, "natural rights", "Laws of Nature" and "unalienable rights", but aren't really sure what they mean.  Let's start with "unalienable". It figures prominently in our 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 ... 
     I would venture to say that most Americans have a distorted idea of what "unalienable" means.  I would further conclude that they think it takes its meaning from the word "alien", signifying that these "unalienable" rights were unfamiliar or foreign to men of that time.  That is a wrong interpretation, and we actually mispronounce the word altogether.  In 1776, when the Declaration was written, this word was not pronounced as un-alien-able; the correct enunciation was un-a-lien-able, as in "a lien", a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt.  For instance, the bank holds a lien against your car, until the note is paid off.
     So now you can see the true meaning of this most important phrase in one of our most important founding documents:  the natural rights that have been given to us by God are not subject to a lien by any king or ruler; they are ours to possess outright.

     And just what are those "natural" rights?  We're all familiar with the language of the Declaration, which says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".  But my favorite Founding Father, Sam Adams, expands on this idea and gives us a fuller picture of what our rights from God are.   In 1772, he wrote, "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of ... the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?" 
     Can you see how far off track we have gotten?  CNN reports that one in six Americans receive some form of government assistance.  They have abandoned "the duty of self-preservation", and in doing so, no longer possess liberty to pursue their lives as they might dream.  In addition, they have become slaves of the State, their Life and their Happiness is at the whim of a benevolent Master.
     It seems as if America is splitting in half ---- those who are content to receive what the government will hand out; and those who are desperate to live their lives as free men, unencumbered by the heavy hand of an oppressive authority.  I am reminded that it was so in 1776 America, as well.  Only one-third of the colonists believed strongly enough in the "radical" notion of these God-given rights to battle the despotic King George III.  The other two-thirds either could not see the value of living their lives unfettered and unchained, or believed wholeheartedly in the Nanny State and the inability of citizens to rule themselves.   They were content to receive whatever was handed out, or placated with money and power from the "system".  Either way, they were at odds with the fire of free will that burned in the hearts of men such as Sam Adams.
     Mr. Adams was something of a firebrand, and was not afraid to confront his fellow countrymen over their subservient nature.  What he had to say to them in 1776 is just as relevant today.  Ponder his words:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, [and] the tranquility of servitude [better] than the animated contest of freedom -- go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
     We are at a time in our nation's history when you must choose your path.  Are you willing to crouch down to those that promise to feed you?  Or are you willing to stand for something more honorable and noble?  Will you depend on the iron fist for your crust of bread, or will you make your own loaf?  Sam Adams was among a unique corps of men who understood that the right to make of themselves what they wished could never be compromised.  It was a truth they understood as "self-evident".  And they were willing to sacrifice their very lives for it.  Are you?

Psalm 119:44-47    "I will always obey your law, for ever and ever.  I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.  I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, for I delight in your commands because I love them."
   

"I Will Keep Them From Harm and Injustice"

     The title of today's post is a small part of the Hippocratic Oath, taken by many doctors as they embark upon a career to practice medicine, both ethically and honestly. It is part of the covenant between them and their patients, and doctors take it seriously.  I want to thank CZ; a faithful reader and friend, as well as a physician herself, for referring me to a timely article by Paul Hsieh, MD, who is a physician and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).
     Dr. Hsieh wrote the article for Forbes Magazine's website, and I have to tell you that it gives me great hope that physicians across the land will follow his example.  Dr. Hsieh gives an indepth account of why he will not follow the mandate issued through the White House Executive Orders that purportedly clarifies that “the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."  Before this "clarification", it was understood that ObamaCare banned the federal government from using patient medical records to compile a list of gun owners.  But with the rising hysteria resulting from the CT shootings and the all-out assault by anti-gun lobbyists and politicians, that stance has been modified.

     Dr. Hsieh, boldly and courageously, calls out the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for their biased position in promoting and encouraging physicians to follow the latest dictate and ask patients about gun ownership --- all in the name of protecting "the children".  He disavows this recommendation, pointing out that they use the false and misleading scare tactic of “A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.”  (These statistics do not disclose suicides among the numbers).
     Furthermore, if you are serious about protecting the children, he asks why would you not report swimming pools to the federal government, which contribute to drowning, a leading cause of death among young children.  In fact, Dr. Hsieh further bolsters this argument by quoting University of Chicago economics professor Steven Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner.  In their best seller Freakonomics, they noted that a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than a gun accident.   So following this logic, physicians should definitely be gathering information on swimming pool ownership.  Or what about stairs (death by falls); household products (death by poisoning); cooking with hot grease (burn injuries and fires); all the small toys or objects that can obstruct a child's airway (death by suffocation or strangulation) .... all of these were mentioned by a U.S. News & World Report article as leading cause of accidental death in the home.  Not guns!
     What is ironic is that the AAP recognizes the value of a swimming pool in a family's life, and even promotes teaching children how to swim .... even though it is a leading cause of death among those same children.  Why can they not give the same credibility to gun ownership?  A gun in a household, with proper training and safety precautions, could be a valuable asset in the home .... especially in the event of an unwanted intruder.  It could actually SAVE lives!  Now that's a novel concept!
     Dr. Hsieh mentions that doctors already have a professional and legal responsibility to notify the authorities if they believe patients pose an imminent threat to others or themselves.  And I believe that doctors take that responsibility seriously.   Mandating that they MUST ask their patients any question about gun ownership is not only violating the patients' constitutional rights and endangering doctor/patient confidentiality, it will erode all trust and confidence in that sacred relationship.
     The good doctor recommends that his fellow colleagues follow the doctrine of a fellow friend and physician, Dr. Matthew Bowdish, who declared, “I will not undermine the Second or Fourth Amendment rights of any of my patients who are lawful gun owners. Nor will I record my patients’ gun ownership status in any medical records that could be accessed by government officials unless relevant to a specific medical issue.”
     Physicians all across the country are having to decide where they stand on this issue.  I pray that the majority of them will follow the dictates of these ethical and brave doctors.  And might I suggest something from the patient side of the aisle?  It would give me great confidence to see a statement similar to Dr. Bowdish's prominently displayed in my doctor's office.  There would be no need for comment or discussion.  All patients would know where their doctor stood and could be confident that their rights were being secured.  I believe that this issue is important enough, (to both doctor and patient), that such a statement would clear the air and set the boundaries of this very important relationship.  We may not have control over Executive Orders coming out of the White House, but we sure as shootin' (pardon the pun) can take charge of the dialogue with our healthcare partner.  Further regulations and legislation are on the way, so know where your doctor stands.  We need to support each other and our Constitutional rights.

Isaiah 8:10     "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us."

A New Year & A New Slant On Gun Control

     I could not end the year and begin the New Year without recognizing the shattering effect that the violent acts in Aurora, Newtown, and now Rochester, NY, had on our American soul.  The nation mourned as innocent lives were lost to the actions of mentally unstable men who chose to use a gun to murder defenseless victims.

     As we expected, there followed a national (and governmental) debate over gun control.  We've heard all the arguments, both pro and con.  And now it seems that in just a couple of days, Senator Feinstein is set to introduce what amounts to the most iron-fisted and oppressive limitations we have ever seen on our Second Amendment rights.  

     Taxes, registration of gun ownership, and all-out bans on many firearms appear to be just the beginning of the government's campaign against gun-owners.  I don't have to tell you that this means each legal gun owner has some decisions to make.  In that vein, I want to share an email that I received from an anonymous reader.  I think it brings a unique point of view to the discussion.  Here is the email in its entirety:

Dear Belle,

     I thought you might like to hear a different angle on the current gun control debate.  As was expected after the recent string of gun-related deaths, the public rushes out to buy every gun and box of ammo they can find.  The shelves are literally empty!  Frankly, I am growing weary of the paradigm battle that starts with every ammo sell-off.  

     I also know that the media will never look at these "active shooter" events for what they really are.  They like the sport of stoking the fires of the moronic 51% of the country that can't think in a critical capacity.  Conspiracy theories orbit around this new brand of "crazy", and I'm inclined to jump on board any number of the crazy trains, but the truth is, at this late stage, it doesn't really matter.

     The current administration is pushing the outcome.  The 51% who have no skin in the economic game or the Fiscal Cliff, don't really care about your gun rights.  As long as they continue to get more free stuff, then let the Second Amendment disappear.  Then you have patriots like the NRA, who are standing relatively silent and dumbfounded, offering no solutions to this outright attack on our rights.  Consequently, we have seen the fear-buying start, and the sell-off cycle repeats itself.

     When retailers like Dick's Sporting Goods and Cheaper Than Dirt folded and removed their inventory from shelves, the response from Gun Culture 1.0 was swift.  This portion of the citizenry who has grown up around guns made their opinion known: "You'll get no more of my business."  But Gun Culture 2.0 is where the real influence lies.  These are new people to "the gun game"; a high percentage of them being women who recognize the importance of being able to defend themselves.  Both of these groups need to pull together and yield nothing to this latest gun grab.  

     Americans need to understand what is at the heart of this Feinstein Bill:  High capacity rifle magazine bans lead to high capacity pistol magazine bans.  Assault Rifle bans lead to every other gun you own being banned.  Even Michael Bane (the head of the Outdoor Channel's gun show line-up, and  most listened to gun podcast) had to endure a waiting period of sorts.  His weekly podcast, which normally airs on Wednesday was pushed back to Friday, so corporate brains could pick the appropriate footsteps in the minefield of public opinion.  No doubt his intentions are good, but he needs to realize that whatever Gun Culture 1.0 was in the past, it won't cut it in this new dynamic.

     2013 is going to be a brawl that our currently intact Second Amendment rights might not survive.  These latest shooting episodes have rocked the world of preppers, shooters, and anyone who is a self-thinker.  And thus, the fear-buying has begun, because I surmise that the writing on the wall just got a whole lot clearer.  The truth is, we can't deny these are pivotal events, and whistling past the grave-yard isn't going to work this time.  

     The NRA fired a weak salvo, that in my mind, hit nothing.  We better get some leadership, and fast, on this issue.  I see the beginnings of a hemorrhage that the NRA is moving too slowly to address.  I can't help but think that if the money we, as a collective, threw into P-mags just these past couple of weeks had been channeled towards a real message, with real leadership, then Mr. O would have to put a cork in Biden, Feinstein and the Moron 51 crowd.  Here's a thought:  Let's say Feinstein gets her $200 tax and registration on every gun you own.  All those who lay low will become instant felons.  There goes the voting rights of the cornerstone of the country.  Can you see that Obama and the Progressive Left are playing 20 moves ahead, and the patriot with his M-4 is no factor at all?

     So we better realize that we have some decisions to make.  Are you willing to risk a felony to maintain your Second Amendment rights?  Because if you are, you better wake up to the fact that a felony will take away your license or your credentials; and if you need a license to conduct your business, well, there goes your livelihood.  Attaching a felony to even 5% of the gun crowd will devastate the Conservative Right.  You can bet that there will be someone at that voting place making sure, that as a felon, you don't get to cast your vote.  

     Could you decide between becoming a felon and keeping your unregistered M-4?  Stop and run the logical argument in your head; look at where the Supreme Court numbers will be in the next four years.  Will the possibility of a felony on all gun owners change their ability to put food on the table, make a living, change our lifestyles?  You damn right it will!  The gun crowd needs to put this possibility into their hard drive and let it compute.  

     I'm beginning to feel as though we are at Bracken's first chapter in the yellow book.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's time to get off your butts and start entertaining some very ugly possibilities.     (Check out www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com).  Yes, I will agree that it's time to buy more food, ammo, P-mag-30s, and a Belgian Malaois named Spike.  But all that won't preserve our rights.  The time to stand is now.  If not now, when?

Signed, 

Old School

     This email really hit home for me, and made me see the Big Picture.  There's been a plan to rid this country of the Second Amendment for quite awhile, and we are seeing it play out before our very eyes. We have been complacent, thinking that the anti-gun lobbies were not strong enough to defeat over two hundred years of tradition and the overwhelming number of lawful gun owners.  But threaten our livelihoods, our voting rights, and the fear of a criminal record, and how many citizens would be willing to throw in the towel?  Old School is right.  Each of us have some decisions to make.  And those decisions could profoundly change who we are as a free citizenry and the future of our republic.   Where will you draw the line?

Jeremiah 6:16     "This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’"

     

     

  

They're Suddenly Awake!

     I am pretty certain that PLW and I are not the only ones;  friends who used to look at us with a skeptical eye whenever we voiced our concerns about SHTF scenarios are now seeking our advice on a myriad of subjects.  They can no longer avoid the economic crisis that is literally two weeks away from impacting every American household.  The horrific tragedy in Connecticut has made them aware how quickly our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights can be threatened.  Suddenly they are concerned about securing their future; whether it be storing extra food, gaining firearms training, or becoming educated on such freedom-threatening topics as Agenda 21, ObamaCare or the National Defense Authorization Act.  Suddenly, they are willing to listen.

     While it may be tempting to say, "I told you so", that doesn't serve our nation.  We need everyone to wake up, and there's no time to waste to get them up to speed.  Frankly, I'm not interested in saving face.  I'm more concerned with helping people take the necessary steps to keep their families safe and secure.  So every phone call was a welcome one.  I'm just glad they have finally taken that all-important first step.

     In that vein, I'd like to share a quick story about a couple with young children that we have come to know through our church.  I will call them George and Mary.  They have three young boys, and Mary home-schools them.  You know how there is usually one out of a couple that is intensely tuned in, while the other prefers to avoid looking the monster in the eye?  Well, in this family, Mary is the one who is clued in.  She instinctively knows her family feels threatened.  With her husband's full support, she independently began preparing.  She took an extended course in identifying which natural plants could be used for medicinal purposes, as well as food.  She learned how to make antiseptics, tinctures and salves from native flora.  It took weeks of painstaking research to identify each plant and learn their properties.  But PLW has been the happy recipient of some of her liniments, and highly sings her praises.

     But Mary called the other day and is ready to take another big step.  She and George have had a serious discussion about how they would defend their family in case of attack.  Mary had long ago designed her plan of protection, should there be a home invasion while she was schooling the boys.  But after the recent shooting sprees, they have realized that Evil is on the rise and they need to be able to protect their family from a more sinister threat.  They have also perceived that Mary is more capable, both mentally and psychologically, to be the Protector should that threat arise.  And I applaud George for not letting his manhood be threatened by this reality.  They have determined that he will be responsible for getting the boys to safety, while Mary is prepared to cover their backs. 

     With that in mind, she took the bull by the horns, and located a firearms retailer that still had a handgun for sale.  As I'm sure you are experiencing, if you haven't secured a firearm for protection by today.... well, good luck with that!  Mary reacted quickly, placed numerous phone calls until she located one more than an hour from her home, and reserved it, to be picked up the next day.  Then, being the smart, perceptive woman she is, she didn't wait until the next day, but drove that night to secure her Second Amendment right.

     She has scheduled professional training and is moving forward with her plan to defend her family, should the need arise.  I am so proud of her and George!  Instead of sticking their heads in the sand, they identified what role each of them could best fill in protecting their family and they moved forward.  I am hopeful that conversations like that took place all over America.  If recent events and proposed legislation isn't enough to scare the pants off each and every citizen, then I'm not sure what delusion you're living under.

     So, if friends, family and even casual acquaintances seem to be waking up..... help them!  Let them come to you and then discern just how serious they are; what information you are willing to share; and in what direction you can point them so that they can do their own research and take the proper steps to meet their needs.  This holiday season is a time for sharing and giving, and nothing could be more important this Christmas than helping a family prepare for the future.

Proverbs 1:22    "How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?"

     

What Must God Be Thinking?

     As I perused the headlines of the day, I have to admit it looked bleak and I fought back a sense of approaching doom.  It's Christmastime and I'll be darned if the celebration of the birth of my Lord and the Savior of the World will be disparaged by the profound immorality and wickedness of mankind!
     At this most holy time of year, what must God be thinking?  Do we seem to be getting closer to reconciling with Him, or further away?  Is my narrow/current perception of the state of mankind accurate, or are we just repeating the sins of historic man?  In today's world, does the birth of the Messiah still have meaning?
     During these last weeks and months, it's as if the total depravity of man has amped up the playing field, sensing that it is on a winning streak and going for broke.  Just consider the headlines: Belgium Considers Euthansia for Minors & Alzheimer's Sufferers; and France Opens the Door to Medically-Assisted Suicide.  And you know that many of our legislators and elitists think that what's good for Europe is good for us.  I suppose, in all their "we-know-what's-best-for-society" brilliance, they think they are qualified to make these life and death decisions.  Let me get this straight .... God has created each and every one of us in His image, and He knows every hair on our heads.  I happen to believe that He knew me at my conception and knows how my life will play out; that includes the state of my health and the exact way I will pass from this world.  For any doctor or governmental agency or "system" to presume that they can overrule God's determination of any person's life is pure arrogance and rebellion against God's authority.  He must be grieving at our ever-evolving readiness to devalue life.

     There is also the ongoing debate over gun control in this country.  Just as the Federal Government seems to think they can legislate a collective solution to our healthcare system and our poor economy by redistributing wealth, they will now attempt to legislate a collective solution to the insanity of individuals who use a firearm to vent their anger.  It is my belief that "stopping the violence" is just a code phrase to appease the masses.  The real intention behind their moves are to control a free society.  Being largely Godless themselves, they cannot conceive that America was a Divine experiment; whereby God, for a short time in His plan of world history, gave His creation more liberty and freedom than man has ever known.  It was theirs as long as they could defend it against the inevitable hunger for power and dominance that man's sinful nature craves.  He gave this exemplary nation and its citizens the desire for independence and self-determination, along with the ability to defend themselves against tyranny.
     And now, not desiring to let "any crisis go to waste", the actions of one sick individual will be exploited to take away the one right of individuals that can guarantee their freedom.  Those of us who believe in the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, are being demonized as out-of-step and an aberration to the culture.  Indeed, we have been designated as the bloodthirsty "gun culture".  We have been depicted as backwoods rednecks, "clinging to our guns and religion", responsible for the recent rash of gun violence against innocent, law-abiding citizens.
     I would refer you to a blogpost by Daniel Greenfield, in which he disputes this generalization:  Your average school shooter is unhappy and angry, irreligious, incapable of fitting into a community and filled with rage that he exercises through violent fantasies. His culture isn’t gun culture. It’s loner culture. Video games do not cause him to kill, but they are how he entertains himself until he can get a taste of the real thing.
     Adam Lanza, Dylan Kleibold, Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, One L. Goh and Jared Loughner had as much in common with what the Michael Moore Fan Club thinks of as "gun culture" as Michael Moore does with the working class. Whatever gun culture they had was not the American Scots-Irish culture of the hunter, the rancher and the militia member, but the urban posse of emasculated men of no worth that brandishes weapons as a way to get respect.
     So what must God be thinking when He has shown us throughout history what has happened to societies who gave up the right to defend themselves?  Haven't we learned anything from Nazi Germany?  A weapon-less society is no longer able to protect themselves from the "bad guys", whether they be those who are intent on mass murder and obtain their guns unlawfully, or a despotic leader who wants unlimited authority.  I confess to being disappointed in the so-called "pro-gun" politicians, as well as the retail and online stores who have buckled to this knee-jerk reaction and obvious pressure to appear "humane."  This I know: more laws on the books won't stop the crimes.  The laws we have now didn't stop them.  Evil will always find a way.
     Just as it found its way over 2,000 years ago, when another "Massacre of the Innocents" was conducted by a tyrannical ruler who feared the influence of a baby born in a manger.  He, too, slaughtered the young of a village to assuage his depraved soul.  And he didn't need a gun to do it.
     In conclusion, I think you will agree with me that if you read the headlines, or listen to the news reports, the world seems to be degenerating into a spiral of decay and destruction.  But I venture that it is no more dark than it was when God, Himself, entered His creation.  The reason He came then is the same reason we have hope today.  As Max Lucado prayed so powerfully after last week's shooting, ""Oh, Lord Jesus, you entered the dark world of your day. Won't you enter ours? We are weary of bloodshed. We, like the wise men, are looking for a star. We, like the shepherds, are kneeling at a manger. This Christmas, we ask you, heal us, help us, be born anew in us." Amen.

Jeremiah 9:23-24     "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight."

U.S. Voter Fraud and the U.N.

     With the stakes so high in this 2012 election, any informed citizen has got to be concerned about voter fraud.  Who can forget the endless vote recounts in the 2000 Bush/Gore election?  Then there was the contested and heated 2008 Senate race in Minnesota between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.  I don't want to bore you with statistics, but the numbers tell a compelling story.

     On the morning after that election, with over 2.9 million votes counted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.  Of course, with the results that close, lawyers for Franken descended; multiple recounts were done and eight months later, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes.  It was only natural that questions were raised, and a conservative group called Minnesota Majority started looking into the possibility of voter fraud.  What they turned up was 1,099 felons who voted in the contested election.  That's 1,099 ineligible voters. Minnesota Majority took their findings to different lawyers; all uninterested in pursuing their claims.  However, Minnesota law requires that such voting irregularities be investigated.  To date, 243 people have either been convicted of voter fraud or are awaiting trial --- this is in an election that was won by only 312 purported votes.
     In case you're saying this is just par for the course; there has always been election fraud to some degree or another, I want to remind you that Al Franken cast the 60th vote that overcame a Republican filibuster and resulted in Obamacare becoming law.  So voter fraud does matter!
     Of course, there are those who say that voter fraud doesn't exist.  It is just a pretense to engender Voter ID laws, which they claim disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and minorities (not to mention illegal aliens who aren't even citizens!)  But there are increasing reports of people voting twice, voting in multiple states, and even voting after they are dead!  But, oftentimes, with only a $50 fine and 3 hours of community service as their judgment, there's just not a whole lot of risk for those who are enticed to break the law.
     So I guess it should come as no surprise that monitors from the United Nations will now be looking over our shoulders as we exercise our American and Constitutional right to vote.  The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a U.N.-affiliated group, will be "looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups."  Just who are these "civil rights groups" that are so concerned about the legitimacy of our election process?

     According to Andrew Bolton, a writer for The Hill, they include the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, who warned this month in a letter to a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”  Bolton goes on to say that 44 monitors from countries like Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will "monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places." The OSCE says that it will "observe the overall election process, not just the ballot casting.”
     They are focusing on a number of areas on the state level, "including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing [and] new voting technologies used in the different states,” said OSCE spokeswoman Giovanna Maiola.
     The obvious question for me, as I'm sure it is for many of you, is how the hell did the United Nations gain jurisdiction and authority over our elections?  Why, if voter fraud is suspected (by anyone of either Party), would we not clean our own house?  Eligibility to vote is determined by both the federal and state governments.  I can easily see the Federal government giving access to U.N. monitors, but where are the States?  Is the average legitimate voter aware that the U.N. is involved in our election process?  Many independent and liberty-minded groups are standing up and monitoring the monitors.  American volunteers will be standing alongside European observers from the U.N.  Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves!
     But maybe not.  They were a lot wiser and more discerning than we are.  It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"  The civil rights groups, the U.N. and the European hirelings may think they represent Democracy and are looking for an easy lunch.  But they underestimate just how much we Americans love our Liberty.  We are just as interested in seeing that this election is not pilfered as the wolves who would steal it.  We are still the United States of America, not a servant of the United Nations.

Leviticus 19:11       "Do not steal.  Do not lie.  Do not deceive one another. "
   

IMPORTANT INFO! Smart Meters Are Coming To Your Neighborhood!

     For awhile now, I have been concerned about the installation of "Smart Meters".  What are they?  One of the best explanations I've seen was on the website, earthcalm.com, a site that monitors the dangers from electronic and magnetic fields.  Their definition reads:  "Smart Meters are electric and gas meter reading devices being installed all over the US as a first step in creating a national smart grid. Designed to enhance energy efficiency and make widespread adoption of renewable energy easier, Smart Meters are radio transmitters that communicate data from homes and businesses to the gas and electric company through a matrix of radio signals. They allow people [and eventually, the government] to measure and monitor their own energy consumption in order to reduce it."  In other words, we are supposed to hale the advent of these new devices as a way to monitor and reduce our energy costs, while saving the planet.

     You want the truth?  They are part of the U.N.'s "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 plan of action.  The installation of these meters is being mandated across the nation by the federal government, and stimulus money is providing the funding.  However, one finds out that the law asking for smart meters and a smart grid, (Energy Policy Act of 2005), only mandates the utilities to "offer" the meters and to install them "upon customer request.” The choice is still supposed to be ours.  However, what I am about to tell you will show that we are being offered no choice at all!
     In case you think I am just responding to my normal conspiracy bias, let me tell you what I encountered just yesterday.  I noticed the Grid One company truck entering my property and the meter reader approaching my utility pole.  I met him at the pole and asked why they were no longer reading the meter from the highway.  The utility representative could barely speak English (that's another issue I could speak to!), and was only able to tell me that "Next year, everyone will get Smart Meters."  I tried to question him further, but he had no answers.  Now my radar was up!
     I went to the internet and started doing my research, and I was astonished to find that citizen activists all over the nation are fighting the forced installation of these so-called "smart growth" energy devices.  There are areas of the country that are under assault; their rights are being violated as older analog meters are removed and they are forced to accept the new Smart Meters.  With a smart meter on your home or property, your kilowatt hours will be billed at different rates during different times of the day.  Mary Hendry, of Lakeland, FL wrote in an article, "“Basically, you can't cook, bathe, run the washer or dryer, have heat or air conditioning until after 9 at night, or you are spending too much on electricity. If a mom is trying to keep the electric bill down, I see her bedtime being around 2 a.m. most nights.”  She explains that with her utility company, the three main time categories are on-peak, mid-peak and off-peak....  and peak time is almost twice as expensive as off-peak."
     And what we're not being told is the harm to our health from these "smart" devices.  Hendry's article goes on to tell us, "There are already hundreds of thousands of cases against various utility companies because of the deleterious health effects of smart meters.  The symptoms and illnesses range from nausea, vomiting and tinnitus to heart arrhythmia and cancer due to the radio frequency waves and electromagnetic frequency they emit.  In fact, studies done on the same kind of waves emitted by smart meters show them to be equal to a level two carcinogenic."  And earthcalm.com has a very informative article stating all their research on the health risks of the smart meters.

     Citizens across the country are rightfully concerned and up in arms over this violation to our Constitutional rights.  In one case, in Houston, TX, a citizen literally had to protect herself from a Utility Company enforcer.  Thelma Taormina was home the day the utility company tried to install a smart meter.  An article at newamerican.com describes the encounter experienced by the 912 Project activist.  When the public-utility subcontractor showed up to install the meter, Thelma informed him she didn't want it; that he was trespassing on her property, and she asked him to leave.  He refused.  Words were exchanged.  He called his supervisor; she called her husband.  He was asked to leave several more times; he continued to refuse and to install the meter.  Their encounter escalated and the subcontractor shoved her.  She put her hand on the meter to stop him, and more shoving ensued.  He threatened to call the police, and then suggested she do it, because he would be through installing the device by the time they arrived.  She had enough.  She felt threatened by his physical actions, and he refused to leave her property when asked.  So being a Concealed Carry Permit holder, she gained access to her gun and asked him to leave again.  This time he complied.
     This story has made national headlines, and according to Thelma, been sensationalized by all the Second Amendment haters.  The subcontractor did call the police in the hopes of filing assault charges.  They came, questioned Thelma, and determined that no charges would be filed.  The man was trespassing and did not leave when requested.  So for the time being, Thelma is through with the incident.  (Some personal advice?  Next time, Thelma, you should be the first one to call the police.  You were the victim, and by delaying, you made the utility employee look like the victim.)  So while Thelma still does not have a smart meter, the Public Utility is still considering the pursuit of legal action..... some nonsense about being "troubled that someone would pull a gun on an employee trying to do their job." Although Thelma was successful in resisting the installation of her Smart Meter, over 2,000,000 have been installed in the Houston area.... even though Texas state law does not mandate the meters.  
     So my question to you is this:  Do you know where your public utility stands on this issue?  What are your state laws?  Do you know the steps to resist the installation should you decide to opt out?  Do your research!  This is not just happening in Texas or Florida or California.  It is nationwide!  Don't fall for the propaganda.  This is more than the advancement of technology; it is Big Brother and the U.N. controlling how we live our lives.  Be informed and take your stand!

Colossians 1:28-29      "Him we preach and proclaim, warning and admonishing everyone and instructing everyone in all wisdom, that we may present every person mature in Christ. For this I labor, striving with all the superhuman energy which He so mightily enkindles and works within me."

Thankful For A Narrower Focus

     Earlier this week I was invited to a political luncheon in which a noted state leader from Americans For Prosperity was scheduled to speak.  AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who champion limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels.   Their hope is that as everyday citizens become more educated about our government's economic policies, they will become advocates in the public policy process, and effect the change that we need.  Short and sweet .... they uphold prosperity and freedom.
     I had been eagerly anticipating this particular speaker, because I was impressed with the work she was doing as our State Director for AFP.  So I drove the 40 minutes to the luncheon, only to find out that she had been hospitalized the evening before.  They couldn't find a replacement speaker on such short notice, so some of the local political candidates in attendance agreed to stand up and give a short speech about their campaigns.
     "Oh, great,"  I thought.  "This is going to be boring and a big waste of my time.  I have blog posts to write."  Well, I have to say that my opinion couldn't have been further from the truth.  One of the men that stood up was my County Sheriff.  I knew his name, but hadn't ever heard him speak, and couldn't tell you one reason why I, or anyone else, should vote for him.  At the end of the luncheon, I no longer had that problem.
     The minute he stood up, you could feel the steely-eyed determination and the strength of his character.  He spoke plainly and without hesitation about the problems our border state is facing.  He boldly proclaimed that until changes are made in Washington D.C., and we use every method possible (border fence, technology, drones, etc.) to plug our porous perimeter, we will never stop the drug cartels and their murderous and growing threat to our homeland.

     Citing the death of another Border Patrol Agent this week, he angrily stated, "I have no use for the Feds; the ATF and the FBI are no help to us.  They change suits every week and just get in our way. You change Washington --- close our borders --- and the County Sheriffs can get this problem handled."  I don't think I have felt more confidence in one of my elected officials since I began voting so many years ago.  For perhaps the first time, I felt like here is someone who recognizes he works for me and my fellow citizens, and actually wants to fulfill his office requirements!
     Because we live in a rural area, with a small number of Sheriff's Deputies on duty, this man is also a strong advocate for my Second Amendment rights.  He knows that he and his men are spread thin, and it is incumbent upon every citizen to be prepared to legally defend themselves.  He approves and encourages Concealed Carry Licenses and firearms training classes.
     If you will recall one of my earlier posts, titled What One Man Can Do, you will remember that Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack successfully sued President Clinton and the Federal Government over their intrusion on State's Rights.  He cited "Dual Sovereignty" of both the Federal Government and individual States, and cautioned that we should not elect officials who refuse to act on behalf of the best interests of the state's citizens.  He further advised that whenever the Federal Government oversteps its Constitutional reach, our local elected officials should interpose on our behalf --- that means stand in the gap between us and a tyrannical authority.
     I believe we have such a man in our County Sheriff.  He didn't soft-sell the dangers of the drug cartels, or attempt to give us a false sense of security.  He told us the truth.  He told us what needs to happen for him to do his job well; what we need to do to help make our community safer.  Changing Washington D.C. is nearly impossible, but the Sheriff laid our task squarely before us.  Most importantly, I feel confident that this man has our back.  He may not have been the featured speaker I was looking for, but he delivered the same goals as the absent spokeswoman .... prosperity and freedom.
   
Ezekiel 22:29-31         "The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice. I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one.  So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord."

Homeschoolers Beware!

     Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the water, there is another dangerous entity circling our lifeboat.  Recently two potentially harmful UN treaties were defeated, or at least stalled.  First, what has become known as the Small Arms Treaty was halted when the U.S., and then later, Russia and China, all asked for more time to consider the ratification of a treaty that sought to regulate the worldwide sale of guns.  Opponents of this treaty feared that it would be the beginning of limitations on our Second Amendment rights.

     Secondly, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) was defeated in the U.S. Senate.  According to The Washington Times, "Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined."   In simple terms, LOST called for the redistribution of both technology and wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries.  It also had an environmental element in the treaty; all parties to the treaty are required to adopt pollution regulations and laws to protect the oceans.  It is my understanding that countries would be limited to claiming a 12-mile offshore area as their own, and economic zone limits were also to be established.  Does anyone believe in national sovereignty and jurisdiction anymore?  That's enough for me! Thank the Lord!  At least there are still some patriots in the U.S. Senate.
     But don't let your guard down.  According to South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, there is another treaty on the horizon that should be drawing our attention.  According to an article at World Net Daily, it's called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion.  First of all, I don't know if you've noticed, but the last few treaties proposed by the UN have done a pretty good job of bypassing the sovereignty of our Constitution.  And now they want to supercede the authority of parents?!?  Of course, Progressives in our government (pick a political Party; any Party) will tell you that it will increase the rights of all disabled people across the globe; old limits will be dissolved and new opportunities will arise.
     But Senator DeMint warns that it's all a smokescreen.  “When you look at the language in the treaty you realize there are other things at stake here. There is a lot of language in there that has nothing to do with disabilities, and is more likely to push the U.S. toward more international law.”  Here's the basis for the fear:  the more we get entangled and intertwined with international law, the more federal judges are going to be upholding international law over Constitutional law.  And any law that displaces parental authority is a bad law.

     What has all this to do with homeschooling, you ask?  When international law is being seriously considered as becoming the law of our land, parents have the obligation to know how it will affect their authority.  And a recent letter by a Swedish Ambassador to  Missouri Senator Roy Blunt expressed a most alarming tone.  In another WND article, Ambassador Jonas Hafstrom was quoted as saying, “The government does not find that homeschooling is necessary for religious or philosophical reasons."  Why should we care about what a European ambassador has to say about homeschooling?  Because Sweden has made homeschooling illegal, and has issued a statement that all children must be taught the state-mandated beliefs because it is their right.  And once this attitude takes hold as international law, these tyrannical treaties that we sign will give our government authority over our children.
     Michael Donnelly of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is concerned enough that he is sounding the alarm.  The association further cites a new education act in Canada that "assumes that the government should dictate what each and every child should learn – including formative issues such as religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. In the situations in Canada and Sweden, we see a one-size-fits-all approach to education that seeks to restrict, if not deny, a parent’s ability to teach what they believe.”
     See, here's the point.  As we become further and further entrapped by the UN, and as we allow ourselves to be governed by international law, it won't be long before some international body is telling you what your children are allowed to be taught.  As the article notes, this is not a far cry from Hitler's Ministry of Education and the control of German youth as he gained power.
     I know this may sound a little reactionary, and perhaps even far-fetched.  But I doubt that anyone can argue that these UN Treaties are being arranged without the knowledge of the American people, and they most certainly do not maintain our sovereignty or Constitutional guarantees.  There should be no more sacred relationship than that of a parent and a child.  And when our government betrays parental authority, and relinquishes it to an international body and set of laws, then we must fight to protect our children.  Read up on this new attempt to surrender our rights.  Stay informed.  If you believe a parent should have the final say in their child's education; and should have the freedom to homeschool if they desire, then you need to get in the trenches.  Because this is no less than a fight for the minds and the education of our children.

Deuteronomy 4:8-9       " And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them."