The American Covenant

The American Covenant
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

***********************************

It is said the USA has more of it’s citizens incarcerated, imprisoned, than any other nation on earth.

I heard this the other night on TV. I wondered what reaction the person making the statement hoped to elicit from me, and others, who heard it.

My own reaction was… so what?

I mean, only a person having no understanding of the foundation of this country could be surprised by such a fact.

Now… for those of you who still think that is an awful thing to say about a nation… hold on a minute!

Consider the US is a nation founded on laws, on a written constitution, and a code of laws founded on that constitution, Olde English Common Law, the laws of the Judeo-Christian religion, commonly known as the Ten Commandments, and a few other lesser known codes of laws. The US is a “nation of laws”.

Now, here is the “kicker”! Citizens of the US are free people… so long as they/we remain within the boundaries proscribed by the laws, which are made by their/our fellow citizens who have been vested with the power to create those laws.

America asks very little of her citizens. All she asks is that they/we obey the law(s) made by the citizens of the country.

If a US citizens, or anyone residing within the US decides, for whatever reason, to live outside those laws, or to ignore, or in any other way, break those laws, then the wrath of their fellow citizens, the people of the 50 states as a whole, will come down on them like a ton of bricks! And in a system such as ours… that is a good thing.

The fact that we have so many of our citizens in jail says nothing derogatory about our system of government. It DOES say a lot about how our family structure, our educational system, and our religious community, has failed and failed miserably.

The “American Family” is as close to non-existent as it has ever been. We can’t even decide what a family is, anymore! “The Church” has abrogated its position as the “setter of societal standards” and has, instead, adopted the aberrant behavior of many in our society as accepted… and even praiseworthy. No longer can a functioning American family point it’s young children to The Church for moral guidance. The Church has failed us miserably. As a result the American family has all but disappeared.

Our educational system has also failed… not only it’s students, but the parents of those students who entrusted their young into the hands of an educational system which no longer educates, but indoctrinates the innocent among us.

Those of you astonished when you hear statements about how many of our US citizens are in prison… remember this: Those imprisoned broke the covenant with their fellow Americans to live by the laws of our land. They knew, before hand, their fellow citizens would require their freedom as payment for their transgressions.

So, do not even try to use the number of imprisoned Americans as a maul to hammer shame onto American society. It won’t work. Each American lives within a self-imposed covenant of laws he has forged with his fellow Americans. This American Covenant has managed to hold off the blackness of chaos and anarchy since the country was founded and it has allowed the US to become the pre-eminent power on the planet.

To those who would run our system of law down, we say: Do not speak of that which you do not know… and do not understand. Look first to your own government’s failure! If you are an American citizen and do not already know this… then the shame is on YOU!

J. D. Longstreet

****************

Conservative+US+Law+Constitution

The National War Powers Consultation Act

The National War Powers Consultation Act
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

*******************************

Ever hear of something called “The National War Powers Commission”? Well, it was put together by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. It is billed as a private, non-partisan, panel led by former US Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher. It is said the commission will examine how the Constitution allocates the powers of beginning, conducting, and ending war.

From our perspective (as a lowly American citizen) this is just another way of getting “creative” with the US Constitution because there are elements within our government that do not like the Constitution, especially in it’s original form, and are determined to change it. All the flowery language aside, they are screwing around with the balance of power in the US government.

There is an interesting article by William Matthews entitled “Congress Mulls War-Powers Overhaul” at the “Defense News” site. We recommend it to you. You will find it HERE.

So, what have they proposed that has my ire pulsing a bright red? A number of things, but first and foremost… they chose to ignore the clear, plain, language of the US Constitution. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution’s bestowing upon the Congress the power to declare war. Period. The President can ASK for a declaration of war… but he does not have the constitutional power to declare this country at war, period. Along comes the so-called National War Powers Consultation Act and, suddenly, the office of the President is dragged into the decision to declare war. That is clearly unconstitutional. The President is given only the power to command the armed forces in a war, which has been declared, FIRST, by the Congress. Nothing could be clearer.

I ask you, what is so hard about reading the constitution and understanding what it says in plain English? I do not understand it! Ever since the 2nd Amendment was ratified Americans have had the right to keep and bear arms, but… just a short time ago 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices didn’t think Americans had that right… even though The Constitution plainly says that we do. Now comes this abomination, which totally ignores the constitution and decides that Congress doesn’t have the sole power to declare war but must share that power with the executive branch, the office of the Commander-in-Chief. It’s another attempt at an end run around the constitution and it ought to be shot down immediately.
We have had four wars since World War Two and the Congress could not drag up enough courage to declare war. I suppose we Americans are expecting too much of our Congress when we ask them to show a little courage and leadership.

Oh, and allow me to remind you that the Congress of the US approved the invasion of Iraq! It is a matter of record. And that is as close as they are ever likely to come, again, to declaring war on another country.

One must remember that even though the Founding Fathers had no telephones, telegraphs, e-mail, faxes, or text messaging, the first Congress of the US was much more in touch with the people of the United States than the current Congress. Understand, the original idea was that the Congress would maintain a link with their constituents, so they would always know the people’s feelings about the direction of the country. But recent congresses have seen fit to cut themselves off from their constituents. With no term limits on their time in office we have created a “ruling class”, for all intents and purposes, unanswerable to the American people. The power to declare war was bestowed upon the Congress because The Founders felt that link to the people would always be there -- more so than with the office of the President.

Declaring war is quite likely the most daunting decision a Congressperson or a Senator will make while in office. Since World War Two the Congress has been running from that responsibility. The War Powers Consultation Act would give the Congress one more fig leaf to hide behind, and it would do nothing to aid the country in time of crisis. It should be tossed out… the sooner the better!

J. D. Longstreet

**************

Conservative+US+Constitution+War+Congress++President+NWPCA

ObamaCare and Gun Control – All In The Same Package?

ObamaCare and Gun Control – All In The Same Package?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

***************************************

So, you’re a hunter, a sportsman, or just a good citizen who has a firearm in your home for the protection of your family and, YES, even for the protection of your property, which you have worked so hard, all your life, to acquire.

The US Constitution says you have that right – RIGHT? Well, NOT SO FAST! It appears that “what we have here -- is a failure to communicate.” See, the Gungrabbers in the Obama Regime, don’t view the constitution the same AS YOU AND I. Nosiree! To them “The Constitution,” at it’s best, is only a suggestion. To you and me, it is THE LAW!

OK, before you go grabbing for your blood pressure pills and assuring “Elizabeth” that “This is the BIG ONE, honey….” lets dig a tad deeper, shall we?

Those of us who have watched ObamaCare develop, over the months and years, (Yeah, I DID say “YEARS”. Why, you didn’t REALLY believe that “thing” was written in the few days and weeks from Obama’s swearing in ceremony until it popped up in the hoppers in the US House and Senate – DID YOU? Surely not! Oh, no… work on ObamaCare began rather a long time ago. But that is a commentary for another time. Not today.)

As I was about to say, before I interrupted myself -- those of us who have watched ObamaCare develop, over the months and years, have not only noticed but we have cried out in dismay at the depths to which the government will be able to dip it’s hands into your business, into your/our daily lives and dictate to you and me just how we will be required to live our lives… if we want to have ObamaCare, that is. Of course, we can pay that hefty fine, (and possibly do a stretch in federal prison) until we change our minds and sign-up like the “good little socialists” we are expected to be. Oh, that part about “doing a stretch in federal prison” is not in the “would-be ObamaCare law” as far as I am able to determine. At least it is not in the bill – YET! But, you allow that lot in Congress to have an inch and they will snatch a mile! Who knows what might be in the bill the next time we look? Jeez, it gives me cold chills!

The good folks over at Gun Owners of America are deeply concerned about the proposed bill and would have you know a few things. They, along with a few million other gun owning Americans, are concerned over the possibility that ObamaCare could be used to ban guns for self defense in the home. As we continue to warn you – do not think it cannot happen because right here, in my state, it is happening among those who are employed by the state and happen to be obese or happen to be smokers. If they fall into either of those categories, or both, they will be hit with higher premiums than the other policyholders. Different you say? Not very, I reply. The principle is exactly the same. The state will be using their power to dictate to us how we live our lives.

In an article entitled: “ObamaCare Could Be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self Defense” they say the following: “in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services...” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

Gun Owners of America goes on to say: “It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.”

The GOA reminds us not to be surprised if ObamaCare creates a “back door gun ban” on any America who owns “dangerous firearms.”

In the article GOA says: “The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)”

The GOA goes on to say: “All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Far fetched you say? Well consider this: “… the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.”

And, the GOA reminds us: “failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

You really NEED to read this article, in full, at the Gun Owners of America site. You will find this particular article HERE.

Yes, this IS scary stuff! But we have been trying for months now to get your attention, to get you to look beyond the fluff the Mainstream Media is plastering all over their print publications and their electronic publications/broadcasts.

It is time to write you Congresspersons and your Senators and tell them of your strong objections to the hand of government in your every day life and most certainly with the government “fooling around” with the freedoms granted American citizens under the US Constitution.

ObamaCare must be stopped and we must do it in an aboveboard, legal, and honorable way. Stooping to the level of those who would strip our freedoms, as Americans, away from us is totally unacceptable.

Just because there appears to be a lull in the action on ObamaCare in Washington, is no reason for us to back off one iota.

J. D. Longstreet

****************

Conservativ+ObamaCare+Gungrabbers+2nd-Amendment+Constitution

Obama’s Communists ... Alan Caruba

Obama’s Communists

By Alan Caruba

************************

“Tailgunner” Joe McCarthy, a 1950s U.S. Senator who lent his name to any effort to expose America’s enemies, was right. At the height of his fame, he said the U.S. government was shot through with communists, many of whom were participating in a vast espionage effort orchestrated by the Soviets.

Though McCarthy was singularly unsuccessful in uncovering communists within the government during Eisenhower’s first term, the “Army-McCarthy” hearings, April 22 to June 17, 1954, were televised for all to see and he became one of the best known anti-communists of his day. Were there Communists and spies for the Soviet Union? Yes, but we would not learn more until a young Senator from California, Richard M. Nixon identified Alger Hiss, a high-ranking State Department official as one.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the records that became available to historians and other scholars confirmed McCarthy’s worst fears.

During the 1930s and 1940s, communism appealed to many Americans. Some had soured on capitalism because of the Great Depression. Others saw communism at work in the Soviet Union and, believing the propaganda, concluded it was a viable alternative to capitalism. It would take a speech by Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Krushchev to draw back the curtain and reveal the horrors of living under Stalin.

Then, as now, communists found a home in the American labor movement and among the liberal elites of the Democrat Party who saw in the New Deal the way to transform America into a socialist nation, as well as among America’s intellectuals on its college campuses. Not much has changed.

One of the founders of the “Weathermen” group that conducted a number of bombings in the 1960s is now a “distinguished professor” at the University of Illinois—Chicago. Bill Ayers is also a longtime, close friend of Barack Obama.

Sen. McCarthy was quite possibly the worst person of his era to lead the investigation of communist infiltration and Soviet espionage. He was bombast and a boozer. In August 1954, a Senate committee released a report censoring him for having abused his power as a committee chairman. He would remain in the Senate, but his days of glory were over. His drinking increased and in May 1957 he died from acute hepatitis.

The sad irony of McCarthy’s story is that the government was, indeed, filled with communist sympathizers, known as “fellow travelers”, and with Soviet-run spies. The story can be found in “The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors” by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel. “Venona” was the U.S. code word given to secret Soviet spy communications.

Venona revealed the full extent of the spying that was occurring. Venona documented that Harry Hopkins, a close friend and advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt was also a spy. Both the FDR and Truman administrations were chockablock with communists. The Venona program of interception and analysis ran from February 1943 to 1980.

In the post-war years, the U.S. created the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency to discover and monitor not just the Soviets, but many other enemies of the nation.

A significant example is the way the Soviets were able to build their own atomic bomb long before their own scientists ever could thanks to their espionage program. There were many others who were known in spy craft as “agents of influence”. One of them was I.F. Stone who wrote a widely read newsletter that provided cover for the actual spies and their activities. Stone continues to be hailed in journalism circles as an outstanding investigative reporter.

Among the Soviet spies were the Rosenbergs who were found guilty of passing atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets. The most famous spy of that era was Alger Hiss who at one point served as the director of the Office of Special Political Affairs in the State Department. He would go on to serve as the secretary general of the founding conference of the United Nations and later become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The current attacks on the CIA, include a statement by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who said “They lie to us all the time.” The Obama Justice Department has re-opened an investigation into interrogation techniques of the CIA as a further effort to discredit the Agency. If you don’t believe this is at the direction of President Obama, you’re being naïve.

In “The Venona Secrets”, the authors note that a classic Stalinist tactic was “demonizing an opponent and then using his vilified name in a broad-brush smear against anyone who challenged Communist views or activities.” This is why the term “McCarthyism” has entered our political vocabulary. This is also what is occurring right now as former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Governor Sarah Palin, get the treatment.

How can you spot a communist sympathizer in the U.S. Congress? You can visit the website of the “Progressive Caucus” where, as of February 2009, more than 80 members of the House, including two from the Senate, self-identify themselves as progressives. “Progressive” was the term communists used after the McCarthy era. It is still in use today.

Some of the progressive caucus members are Ed Markey and Henry Waxman, co-authors of the “Cap-and-Trade bill that would impose a huge tax on all energy use in America. You will find Charles Rangel, currently under ethics investigation for having hidden hundreds of thousands of dollars from authorities. Barney Frank, the “brains” behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s purchase of millions in worthless mortgage loans, is a member. He is the godfather of a meltdown on Wall Street that remains a threat to our capitalist economy.

A significant number of the caucus are Afro-Americans. They include Jesse Jackson, Jr., John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Donald Payne, and Bobby Rush to name just a few.

With the collapse of the former Soviet Union, many former communists became “environmentalists”, often playing major roles in the many organizations serving that cause.

Among President Obama’s ever-expanding circle of “czars” is Carol Browner, the former Clinton-era director of the Environmental Protection Agency (1993-2000) whose latest appointment also revealed that she served on the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which is part of Socialist International. Her association with the group has since been scrubbed from their website.

Most obvious and notorious is Van Jones who has never made a secret of his political preference for communism and who is Obama’s new “Green Jobs” czar. The links between the environmental movement and communist goals are numerous, nor should it surprise anyone that the “global warming” hoax was birthed in the bowels of the United Nations.

Today, thanks to the way history is taught in America’s government schools, the threat to freedom that communism posed then and still does pose, is barely a subject for discussion. When he was still an adolescent in Hawaii, President Obama came under the influence of Frank Marshall Davis, a widely known communist in the 1950s.

Obama is completely at home with communists, but is ironically being attacked by the nation’s far Left for not fulfilling their dream of the complete transformation of the nation from capitalism to socialism fast enough.

The destruction of the nation’s economy is necessary to complete the transformation and it is only the outrage and protests of Americans that will save us from a fate that has been and remains the goal of the nation’s communist enemies.

Alan Caruba

(Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.)

*********************************

Liberal+Progressive+Obama+Constitution+Socialism+Communism

Obama's Unconstitutional Czars! ... Alan Caruba

Obama’s Unconstitutional “Czars”

By Alan Caruba
***********************

Here’s a question that has been nagging me for months. Are Obama’s ever-growing number of “czars” constitutional? I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have read the document.

“Article II. Section 2. “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

As I read it, the Constitution is very specific about whom the President may appoint and he can do so only within parameters “established by law” and this applies specifically to the “heads of departments.” I interpret this to mean Cabinet Secretaries, all of whom must be vetted and approved for their positions by the Senate.

The Republican National Committee’s conservative caucus recently passed a resolution expressing their concern noting that “The U.S. Constitution explicitly states government officers with significant authority (called ‘principal officers’) must be nominated by the President and are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.”

Obama’s appointments are clearly “principal officers” though it will be argued that they are only advisors to the office of the President. Clearly, Obama’s appointments are not heads of departments, but they appear to have been granted an unknown degree of influence and control as regards their responsibilities. They function “in the dark.”

For example, since we have a Department of Labor why do we need an “Auto Recovery” czar, Ed Montgomery, who reports to Larry Summers, the President’s top economic advisor? What can he do to effect recovery? And, constitutionally speaking is it lawful for the United States to have “ownership” of General Motors? Or any other private enterprise? I think not.

Why does President Obama need a “Special Envoy for Climate Change”? Todd Stern reports to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but we have the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that includes the National Weather Service. What exactly does Stern do and why? Stern is best known for having helped negotiate the Kyoto climate pact which was based on the discredited claims of a global warming that is not happening. It was instantly rendered void by the exemption of nations such as China and India.

Meanwhile, the so-called energy and environment czar, Carol Browner, is reportedly coordinating policy in the same area as the “climate change” czar despite the fact that we have both a Department of Energy and an Environmental Protection Agency. Obama's choice for “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, is a Marxist radical.

I could go on, but the point, obviously, is that there is an enormous amount of overlap going on and it involves appointees who give the appearance of being doppelgangers to the existing Secretaries and the huge bureaucracies they oversee. They answer directly to the President, but presumably so do the Secretaries whom we occasionally see gathered around a huge table in cabinet meetings.

If these people who have not been approved by the Senate or occupy positions that have not been “established by law” and are not “heads of departments” exist solely at the pleasure of the President, are we not hip deep in some very muddy waters concerning who is answerable to the Senate or House committees?

I am of the belief that Obama has methodically gone about creating a shadow government of men and women with undefined powers, but who likely have even more influence with the Oval Office than those who hold office under the mandates of the Constitution.

To borrow a term from the White House, it all smells “fishy” to me in ways that go beyond just the provision of advice and which likely intrude deeply into the process by which laws and regulations are drafted and enacted.

There are now some thirty or more of these “czars” and they represent a threat to the authority of the Congress and could be utilized in some manufactured “crisis” to take control of the federal government, dispensing with the rule of law.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, August 2009

*************************

Conservative+Internet+Obama+Constitution+Socialism+Czars

Obama to Acquire Control of the Internet?

Obama to Acquire Control of the Internet?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************************************


We warned this would happen many months ago. Yet, here we are today, and people are surprised by this blatant move to assert control over the Internet and, indirectly, over those who use it. That would be you and me!


CNET NEWS has an article by Declan McCullagh titled: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You will find the article HERE.


In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.


They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors.” Mr. McCullagh goes on to say: “The new version would allow the president to "declare a Cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "Cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.”


In his article Mr. McCullagh says: “CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called Cybersecurity emergency.” You’ll find an excerpt from Senate Bill S. 773 HERE.


Looking closely at this bill one soon understands that it is a strong-arm tactic to take responsibility for Cybersecurity from Homeland Security and give it to the White House and Obama’s minions. (Or, should I say Obama’s Praetorian Guard?)


At the risk of upsetting some of you, I must say I have not witnessed such power grabbing since the Nazis seized control of Germany before the Second World War. Of particular concern is Senate Bill 778, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack. What we are looking at, dear reader, is being referred to by those who oppose it as drastic federal Intervention! I must say, I agree.


There is another article found HERE and titled: “A Bill to Shift Cybersecurity to White House.” To get an even better understanding of the control the White House will have over the Internet we recommend you read this article, as well.


My friend, Texas Fred, has an excellent article on this very thing over at his site. The title of his article is: “Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.” You’ll find it HERE.

The question is… how much control is enough control for Obama’s White House? Or, how much control is TOO much control for the American people? When do we say ENOUGH and say it loud and clear so that those barricaded inside the White House hear us and understand that they are treading on some very tender toes, indeed.


It is not just our toes the Obama Administration is treading on it is, in my opinion, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution they are treading on, as well. The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. When one reads the proposed new law, one has to ask if Obama is intending to suspend the Fourth Amendment?


Little by little, day-by-day, as the Obama Regime grows new tentacles, their mad grab for power and absolute control becomes more expansive. They are quickly gaining control over every facet of our daily lives. Privacy is a thing of the past in Obama’s America.

All of this leads me to ask: When will the backlash begin?? When will the American people say enough of Obama and his socialist utopia agenda?

It is an awesome thing when the American public rises up in righteous anger as much of the world can attest. The tar is being heated, the chickens are being plucked, and the rails are being split. Washington had best prepare for a tsunami of American anger to surge through its marble halls sweeping the rot of socialism before it into the gutter of American history where it rightfully belongs.


J. D. Longstreet
*************************
Conservative+Internet+Obama+Constitution+Socialism

Guns and America

Guns and America.
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

****************************************************
It is impossible to separate the two... guns and America, I mean. Guns obtained and secured the country we now know as “America” for the people we now know as “Americans.”

As the settlers/pilgrims stepped ashore in the New World they carried their trusty weapons, guns. When the frontiersmen dipped their toes into the waters of the western sea, the Pacific, no doubt they clutched in their hands a later variant of the same weapon the Pilgrims had in their grips when their toes touched the sand of the Carolina, Virginia, and New England beaches. It had been a long journey but guns had fed, clothed, and protected these new people, called Americans, as they laid claim to a new land destined to become the leader of the free world, if not the entire world.

When these restless people, the Americans, decided their “King” was demanding more from them than they were willing to give, the gun won them their Independence. Some eighty years later, these same restless peoples decided to fight a war amongst themselves over, depending upon how you decipher history, “States Rights” or “Slavery”. (In my case, I have done the research and know that States Rights was the cause of the American Civil War simply because the facts, when laid bare, support that interpretation. Yes, slavery BECAME an issue in the war but only after the war had raged for nearly two years and when Lincoln needed political support, badly, from the abolitionists, for the war he was losing! All this is for another day, in a different venue, so I will cut it short by urging you to actually read the “Emancipation Proclamation” if you are REALLY interested in learning just how many slaves were freed by that piece of political propaganda. The answer was, of course, NONE.). In any event, the gun, carried by both sides in the conflict devastated the countries and some say forged a single entity known as the UNITED States of America. Only recently, frankly, have I begun to question that.

In all the wars since, the gun has taken the war to America’s enemies and protected the Americans wielding it and managed to secure the freedom and liberties our forefathers put their lives and their fortunes on the line for back in the 1700’s. Together, we have come a very long way the gun and America.

But, just as there were two camps in the days preceding the American Civil War, there are two camps today as regards the gun and the American citizen. One camp made up of folks who think Americans have no need of the gun, and those in the second camp who feel Americans and the gun are inseparable… and should be.

“Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership. Society does not benefit from gun control.” I have no idea who said that first, but it would make an excellent motto for the Americans who believe Americans and guns are inseparable.

The argument over guns flares up, it seems, with each new Presidential Administration’s entrance into the White House. Much the same thing happens after each congressional election and when a new Justice is vetted for the US Supreme Court. As we are just a few weeks into all three happening, both camps have applied their war paint and are looking for opportunities to make thie positions known and likewise feel out the new people in the White House, on The Hill and on The Court.

When our forefathers wrote the constitution their collective wisdom was based upon all the collective wisdom from creation up to their day. To our knowledge, there were no “seers” or clairvoyants among them. In other words, no one could see the future or what it held for this brand new country and, indeed, the world. Had there been, I expect the final version of the constitution would read much differently from the end version we have today.

Recently, the US Supreme Court ruled that the constitution actually meant what it said about US citizens having the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is important to notice that the decision in favor of the Forefathers won by a single vote of the Court. The vote was 5 – 4 in favor of interpreting the 2nd amendment so Americans did not have to turn in their guns or have the US Government confiscate them.

The obvious problem with this vote is that it will instigate more litigation until finally, at some point, those who wish to take away that right will succeed. In fact, many feel the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court may, in fact, be the final straw and the next time the second amendment is tried before this court Americans will lose their right to keep and bear arms.

Thinking about it for a while now, I have concluded that we may have at least two more chances before we lose our guns. Until the liberals in America manage one more seat on the court, we may, and I say “MAY” with trepidation, get one more case decided in favor of my side, (the side in favor of allowing Americans their right to keep and bear arms) before we lose the next case and, along with it, our right to keep and bear arms. (By the way, define “ARMS.” Does it cover knives? If so, how long? How many edges? Hilt or hiltless? , etc, etc.)

As one who favors the right to keep and bear arms I am concerned over the Sotomayor appointment to The Court. Why? Well, first of all, I accept that she will be seated on the court. It is a done deal. But there are indicators from her past that concern me. These indicators cause me to believe that when the chips are down she will vote to ignore the obvious meaning of the second amendment and support taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Lets looks at some of those indicators:

She has spoken out against the Heller decision in which the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.

She has expressed disdain for private gun ownership dating back to her senior thesis at Princeton University, where she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated: "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

And In addition to her record opposing the Second Amendment, she has also strongly advocated judicial activism. (In some ways, this worries me more about Ms. Sotomayor than her obvious problem with the 2nd Amendment!)

If this Sotomayor record does not give you pause, then, frankly, I don’t know what will.

So America edges ever closer to losing the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, quite possibly even the right to carry a knife. There can be no doubt that a knife, in the time of our forefathers, was, indeed, a weapon. It would, no doubt, fall into the category of “arms.” There can also be no doubt as to why the forefathers felt it important to place this amendment in the constitution as a part of the original 10 amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. They had just fought a war against a tyrant to gain their freedom - and they did it with a citizen’s army composed of men who owned their own weapons!

George Washington, the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States said the following: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Thomas Jefferson said the following: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

And finally, words from the most well known of the tyrants of the last century, Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

It is good, I think to note that the Forefathers felt so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that it is the SECOND Amendment. The first being, of course, freedom of speech, religion, etc.

We must tread softly, yet boldly, as we attempt to protect our rights these days. America has two generations of citizens trained in socialism as products of the Public (Government) School System. Like “Pavlov’s Dog” they await only the ringing of the bell to respond in defense of the “greater good.” But, like the other dog, chasing it’s tail, they haven’t the reasoning ability to ask of themselves what they intend to do with the tail if, and when, they DO catch it?

J. D. Longstreet

****************************************************************

Conservative+Guns+America+Constitution

Is the Christian Church in America Being Forced Underground?

Is the Christian Church in America Being Forced Underground?

By: J. D. Longstreet

***********************



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment to the US Constitution



My old Pappy used to say that the persecution of the early Christian Church was the greatest thing to happen to the church since the Resurrection. It forced the church to spread through out the modern world of that era. In doing so, it spread the Gospel, the “Good News” of the newly formed Christian church and sank its roots deep into what had, until that time, been pagan soil.



Judging from the news coming out of San Diego, California, it’s a mighty good thing they don’t have coliseums and lions there. For if they did - well, you get the picture.



Wait a minute! You DON’T get the picture! Haven’t you heard of the strident measures the government is taking there to squelch religion taught in the home? Apparently, many of you have not.



Well, now. It would behoove us to fill you in so you can have a solid foundation upon which to build your opinion of what is going on in this particular part of California.



To get a good grasp of the situation you need to go HERE. The piece is titled: “Home: No place for Bible study.” Drew Zahn wrote it.



It seems a San Diego Pastor and his wife were questioned by officials from the county and told they would be fined if they continued to hold bible study courses in their home. Yep, that’s what I said: “Their H O M E!”



The incident dates back to (the) Good Friday before Easter when a county government employee paid them a visit. According to the couple they were asked a number of questions about the bible study they were conducting. Among them were questions about whether or not there was hymn singing and the verbal expressions: “Amen” and even “Praise the Lord ” spoken aloud.



It seems the county has this permit they refer to as the Major Use Permit, or the MUP. The Pastor’s wife says she was informed that she and her husband MUST have an MUP before they continue to hold those services in their home. Now, a MUP oft-times involves lots of money. Depending upon the activity, they may require a traffic study, and/or an environmental study. Plus, the applicant for a MUP must comply with parking and sidewalk regulations, as well. We’re told that the costs for all this often exceeds ten thousand dollars could exceed that several times.



We have warned a number of times about the complete disregard for the US Constitution and the shredding of it by others. It seems to us, this is a good example of simply ignoring the law of the land and making up law on the fly.



Of most concern, though, is the obvious ignoring of the US Constitution - the First Amendment that makes up the Bill of Rights, no less.



While some may argue that the First Amendment only applies to laws made by the Congress of the United States, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches of the US government, as well. And – during the last century - the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.



Now, as if that is not enough, along comes something called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This one is SO bad it prompted A Texas pastor to write an open letter to the US Senate asking ANY Senator to filibuster the bill! The Pastor, Rick Scarborough, pastor of Harvest Point Church in Nacogdoches, Texas, and founder of “Vision America” refers to the recent Congressional actions as a "maddening march to the destruction of our First Amendment right to freely practice our religion."



In the outside event that you don’t know - this bill would provide special protections to homosexual people while leaving Christian ministers open to prosecution – if - their teachings were to be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person.



Now, to understand the import of this bill to a Christian church, one must understand that the Christian faith teaches that homosexuality is a sin, one of the gravest of sins. As the vast majority of Christian churches teaches that the Bible is the “infallible” Word of God or, at the least, the “inspired” Word of God, then a Christian pastor is bound by his/her faith to teach the same and, from time to time, he/she will be “lead” to preach against homosexuality as the sin that he truly believes that it is.



Under this law, as I understand it, a pastor preaching such, from a pulpit, will be liable (would be in violation of the law) and subject to imprisonment, a fine, or whatever the court and the law decree, should one of his parishioners, or simply a listener, go out and commit a “hate crime” against a homosexual, especially if that perpetrator should mention that he did the crime after hearing one of the good pastor’s sermons.



The act has already been approved in the US House of Representatives as HR 1913 and is sitting in the queue and waiting in the Senate as S. 909.



In his letter, Pastor Scarborough says: “The legislation pending before you will make me an 'inducer' to hate crimes if I preach Romans 1:18-32 and someone who hears me then commits a criminal act against a protected class. It is clear that this bill will criminalize biblical preaching and will prevent me and thousands of other clergymen from practicing our faith without threat of penalty from our own federal government." (You REALLY NEED to read Romans 1:18 - 32 in order to understand the Christian church’s take on homosexuality.)



Here is the text of the letter Pastor Scarborough sent to the Senate:



Dear Members of the Senate of the United States:

As a pastor of a local congregation, I humbly request that at least one of you stand up on behalf of all God-fearing Americans and stop this maddening march to the destruction of our First Amendment right to freely practice our religion in America via "hate crimes" legislation including the protection of pedophiles and other aberrant and destructive behaviors. As you are fully aware, the hate crimes bill that recently passed the House and is now before your body will seriously erode that freedom.

Congressman Louie Gohmert repeatedly sounded the alarm that if the version of the bill which passed the House is finally signed into law, the radical left will be fully armed with the power of federal criminal law to silence any dissenting voice that declares homosexuality or other such behaviors sinful and wrong.

I have been preaching the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ since 1969. I have deeply held religious convictions that the Bible is God’s revealed truth about man and humanity, and I hold no animosity toward homosexuals or anyone who disagrees with me. Let’s debate the merits and the facts and allow all sides to air their opinion. But do not silence pastors nor penalize people of faith.

In the Scripture there are clear guidelines regarding marriage, human sexuality, and social order.

In the first chapter of Romans there is a clear prohibition against same-sex relations. The legislation pending before you will make me an “inducer” to hate crimes if I preach Romans 1:18-32 and someone who hears me then commits a criminal act against a protected class, including those who choose to live in defiance of God’s revealed truth. It is clear that this bill will criminalize biblical preaching and will prevent me and thousands of other clergymen from practicing our faith without threat of penalty from our own federal government.

A congressman who strongly opposed this legislation in the House recently said to me, “They just don’t get it, Pastor Rick!” I believe that some of you do “get it,” and it is incumbent upon you to stand up for what is right and just and stop thistrain from arriving at the station.

I have walked the halls of the Senate Office Building, as have others, begging for someone to lead a filibuster of the bill, only to be told repeatedly that it is a lost cause. Frankly, sirs, there are no lost causes except when good men fail to fight a desperate battle for their God and their liberty.

That’s why we are making this appeal to you. On behalf of God and our freedoms we beseech you to take up the torch. In the words of acclaimed actor and World War II hero, Jimmy Stewart, in one of the most memorable movies of the 20th century, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington": “Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.”

Who will step forward and filibuster this wicked legislation? Who will champion Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who will find themselves in jeopardy when this legislation is signed into law? Will you?

When young David approached the field of battle bringing news to his three warrior brothers from his father, and saw Goliath taunting the armies of God, he left his carriage and said, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” When his own brothers rebuked him, he then replied, “Is there not a cause?” That day one courageous follower of the living God showed the world that God could whip a giant and rout an army.

Senators, I plead with you to be our champion, NOW! Surely there is one Senator who believes in the cause of righteousness enough to stand up and do the right thing, whether it’s popular and winnable or not! Is my freedom to practice my religion freely a worthy cause? Is not the First Amendment a righteous cause? Is there not a cause?

You have been honored by your constituents who have elected you to uphold the Constitution.



To get more on this story, go HERE.

To answer the question posed in the title to this commentary - yes, I believe, eventually, the Christian Church will be driven underground in America as it has been in other nations around the globe. Otherwise, it will cease to exist in this land many firmly believe was founded by Christians.



As I scribble these few words it could not be any clearer that this bill is a violation of the First Amendment. Will it pass the Congress and be signed into law by the President? Yes, I believe it will. Why? The answer is quite simple: because America is no longer a Christian nation. At least, America’s government no longer governs based on the Judeo-Christian code of laws and beliefs. And very soon now, the Supreme Court of the land will be in the hands of socialists, as well, and that will be the end of the failed experiment called “America” a nation which was to have been governed only by the voice of it’s people and their God.

J.D. Longstreet

******************

Conservative