Nobody is trying to take citizenship away from Native Americans

"Trump wants to deprive Native Americans of their citizenship!"

That's what I've heard from a number of people since yesterday, so I looked into it.

Yes, it's true: per the strictest interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment at that time, indigenous Americas were not counted as citizens of the United States.  They were instead citizens of their respective tribal reservations.

So the attorneys et al on Trump's side are literally correct.  Up to the time that the Fourteenth was adopted, at least.

But the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 clarified that Native Americans who were tribal citizens were also American citizens, to be counted and taxed as much as any other citizen.

I doubt that anyone in this administration has even a passive thought to deprive any legal citizen in the United States of their citizenship.  Congress has already stated through legislation that indigenous Americans are fully American citizens.

President Trump just gave federal recognition to the Lumbee tribe.  Something that particular demographic has wanted for a very long time.  That doesn't sound very "Indian exterminationist" to me.

Unless someone can thoroughly persuade me otherwise, my stance remains as it already long has been: illegal aliens are already citizens of their countries of origin.  And unless they have become naturalized citizens, per an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, their children are likewise citizens of those countries also.

Yours Truly,

Robert Christopher Knight

1/16th Tsalagi and proud of it

Read More

What the leaked majority opinion REALLY does

 I'm seeing a lot of outrage about the leaked draft of the majority opinion overturning Roe v Wade. Much anger about destroying a "right" to abortion. But for all their screaming these people are showing us that they have NO grasp whatsoever of what they are screaming about.

Justice Alito's draft does NOT end the right to abortion. It does however articulate that the federal government has no standing in establishing such a right. The opinion is of the belief that Roe erred when it legislated into being a notion that the federal government had no constitutional basis in creating.

 

All that the majority opinion is arguing, if it is indeed the final say in the case at hand, is that the issue of abortion is one that per the Tenth Amendment is the sole province of the individual states. Which is exactly where it should have been given to almost fifty years ago.

 

So now it is going to be up to state legislators, who have been voted into office and who are beholden and accountable to their constituents (i.e. the voters), to decide if abortion will be legal in their respective states. It will NOT be a "right" whipped out of thin air by a judge or group of justices who do not answer to the people, but instead act upon their own politics.

 

This is a return to the balance of powers established in the original Constitution and then the Bill of Rights. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

This is stuff we were supposed to have learned in ninth grade civics class.

 

But I suppose too many politicians, and celebrities, and "useful idiots" in the streets, never paid attention to.

 

 

Read More

Chris addresses the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and declares war against hate at Elon University... with his FIFTH article for American Thinker!

Hmmm... let's see...

This past week has seen the writing of my second-ever work of short story fiction (while stranded in a motel room along with Tammy the Pup during Hurricane Florence) after trying for decades to crack that art, work begun on a one-act play, finally started plotting a children's book(?!?). And now, it's article #5 written for American Thinker!

Has the Muse roared back from her exile, or what? For awhile I thought she had gone sailing off the cliff in a convertible accompanied by Dignity a'la Thelma and Louise, but anyhoo...

"There's Poisoning the Well, and Then There's Borking the Well" is my take on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination for the United States Supreme Court. However, that's just the peripheral matter of a way bigger issue: that for sake of partisan power there are some - and I'm looking at you in particular, Senator Feinstein - who are enthusiastically willing to trample upon a millennia of legal tradition in abandoning the rule of law. And when that is allowed to transpire, all of us as a people suffer its consequences.

From the article:

The machinations currently deployed against Brett Kavanaugh stem from a heart of darkest cowardice. If his detractors cannot prevail on purely rational and intellectual grounds, then they will do so playing to the basest hysteria and hate. There will be no satisfying their bloodlust until Kavanaugh's haggard, weary face is up on the telescreens, accusing himself of crimes against Big Sister that he never committed. So it is that the yet to be substantiated claims of Ford and Ramirez are now enough, we are told, to override fair and due process. Strangely, this principle never seemed applicable to Juanita Broaddrick, but I digress.

But... that's not all, folks! Because something else gets touched on in my new article and this one is much more personal.

It is this: that in the article I'm calling attention to the fact that Elon University - the college I could once be proud to call myself an alumnus of - is now harboring, employing and celebrating someone who has been taking an active part in the harassment of many innocent people, for no reason other than their holding to political beliefs she does not agree with.

Megan Squire, an Elon computer sciences professor, was revealed earlier this year to be an Antifa activist. She is, for all intents and purposes, an enabler of domestic terrorism.

Yeah, I said it. I went there. And from where I'm sitting it's plenty enough cause for myself and other alumni to withhold our contributions to Elon.

Again from the article:

The ol' alma mater already lost my contributions earlier this year – a consequence of Wired revealing that one of Elon's computer professors is Antifa activist who has been compiling a massive database of anyone she deems Lebensunwertes Leben.  That means "Republicans," "conservatives," "Alt-Right," "white supremacists," and pretty much everyone listing starboard of Friedrich Engels.

Megan Squire is not only still employed at Elon, but applauded.  Last week Squire delivered a "Distinguished Scholar Lecture" about her work supplying the Southern Poverty Law Center with information about their common enemies.  This is the same Southern Poverty Law Center whose "hate list" has been used to target innocent people for assassination.  Curiously, Squire's work is totally absent any analogues from the left of the political spectrum.  A "scholarly oversight," no doubt.

Once upon a time, Elon University was a place that encouraged freedom of ideas and vigorous debate. But as ideological homogeneity has prevailed upon "the most beautiful campus in America," that time is now past. The school that welcomed Margaret Thatcher to dedicate its student center in 1995 would probably have the Iron Lady arrested for trespassing were she still with us.

In good conscience, I can no longer contribute to a school that has embraced intellectual intolerance and has abandoned reason for capricious "feelings." Neither can I endorse my college when it continues to have among its staff a gleeful provider of resources for domestic terrorism. But still, I held out hope that sanity there might yet prevail.

As ever, in conveying my thoughts for publication I do my best to steer away from partisan labels and identity politics. As I told a colleague today: "I deal in ideas, not ideologies."

But regardless of where you're coming from on the political spectrum, I like to believe that very, very few of us are comfortable with the knowledge that anyone is being targetted for harassment, intimidation and much worse because of their opinions.


Does Megan Squire believe herself justified in painting her enemies in such broad strokes?  Is she a fitting representative of the Elon University community in doing so?

Regardless of whether she does, well... I've no other way to put this. At times I have encountered truly hate-filled people. Like neo-Nazis (got shot at by a gang of them) and the Westboro Baptist Church (had to spent several hours with them one hot summer night in a small television studio).

From where I'm sitting, there is not a shred of difference between the "God Hates Fags" idiots and Megan Squire. One just happens to have a computer science education and a better web page.  And also potentially has had her work lead to the injury of others if not worse.

When the objective is hatred, the semantics matter none. And there can be no excuse or justifying that hatred.


So, President Connie Ledoux Book and the trustees of Elon University: in keeping with the school's expressed beliefs in diversity of ideas and backgrounds and that the school should be a safe environment... when are you going to dismiss Dr. Megan Squire from the computer sciences department?

Because having a hate-filled extremist in your faculty, and one so enthusiastically applying her work toward damaging and destroying the lives of others, is the kind of thing that - not to put too fine a point on it - might dry up the alumni contributions. It sure has mine. Having seen some of Dr. Squire's Twitter account, I cannot understand how anyone's life can contain so much anger and hatred. Much less that of a Ph.D.

As far as Squire's work from a purely academic perspective is concerned: she may be brilliant at Python databases but the bias factor of the data itself is so irredeemably out of whack that it's utterly useless beyond a political agenda. Raw data is supposed to be neutral, impartial, agnostic... and Squire's methodology is a betrayal of all of that and more. In short: she is not a serious scholar. That alone would merit reconsidering her status as a member of the faculty.

Having such a malicious person intent upon causing grief to others certainly does not reflect well at all on whatever vestige of Christian values remain from the college's founding under the oaks in 1889.

Which is more important: the reputation and integrity of an institution that many of us still hold dear in our hearts and memories? Or protecting an enabler of domestic terrorism out of some passing fad of "resistance"?

So... "Long live Elon"?

What is it going to be?

Read More

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act: An affirmation of liberty, and other thoughts

Some musings on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now on the books in Indiana and that so many are in a tizzy about...

The act does not discriminate.

The act is not "anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual, anti-transexual" or anti-anything at all. Nowhere in the text of the legislation is there found a clause stipulating that any one or any group in particular is to be given any less protection under the law.

The act simply reasserts something that Amendment One of the Bill of Rights has codified for well over two hundred years: that there is a right to assembly and association. This also means that there is just as much a right to NON-association.

The act simply does as its title indicates: it allows for individuals and businesses to not provide a service if doing so violates the religious beliefs of that individual or business.

There are many people who do not believe that such a valid concept exists as "gay marriage" or any other kind of marital relationship apart from one man and one woman. These people have a right to those beliefs even if they are not agreed to.

The act asserts the rights of such people to act in accordance to their religious beliefs.

The act applies across the board to every citizen of the state of Indiana. Thus, a Moslem photographer cannot be compelled to be hired for a Jewish bar mitzvah. A Jewish carpenter cannot be forced under penalty to build a creche for a church’s Nativity scene. A Christian-owned bakery will not be obligated to bake a cake meant for a homosexual marriage celebration. And a homosexual-owned catering service cannot be made against their will to provide food for the "God Hates Fags" nuts at Westboro Baptist Church.

Those who are against the act have every right in the world to look for another business with which to solicit service as a customer.

Why are two homosexuals who want a wedding cake going to a bakery that they know is against homosexual marriage, anyway? Are there no more bakeries around, or could it be that they desire to forcefully compel that bakery to provide against its owners beliefs?

If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is going to legalize discrimination and if those against the act are concerned about it on such a vast scale, then logically they have accused most of the people of the state of Indiana of being pro-discrimination and that said discrimination is deeply entrenched in that state's society. I have to wonder what most citizens of Indiana would think of that.

Those who are in favor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not consumed by hate toward anyone.
And if they were, I would not want to associate with those people. Christians are not to hate anyone. But that does not mean that Christians must give approval of behavior that according to their convictions is sinful.

The ones who are most preaching "tolerance" seem to be rabidly intolerant of those who hold to the beliefs of marriage being solely between man and woman.

The ones who are most preaching "tolerance" seem to be rabidly intolerant of, for the most part, Christians.

Businesses have the right to serve or turn away who they wish. If a business does not want me as a customer, it can do so. Just as I can choose not to solicit service from that business or any other. If a business so chooses to discriminate, I have the right to go to or not go to that business. If a business decides it will no longer serve celibate white males with bipolar disorder, then I will not try to force the issue and neither would I want to. Neither would I try to be a customer of a business that discriminates against women or other ethnic groups. I will gladly take my money elsewhere.

Those against the act are naturally welcome to boycott Indiana. However such boycotts in general are counter-productive.

I would even dare say that boycotting the entire state of Indiana is akin to cutting off one’s face in spite of his or her nose.

The people who disagree with those against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not "bigots". They do not hate anyone. They are not followers of an outdated religion. They are not pro-discrimination. I have been called all of these things and more in the past few days, by people who do not know what they are talking about.

If a church is truly discriminating against homosexuals, I would not want to be a part of that church. Jesus loved the prostitutes, the tax collectors, and every other sinner as much as He loved His disciples. So must I. But neither did Jesus affirm or approve of their sins. Neither can I. He told them to "go and sin no more." So they must. So must I, for that matter. No church should turn away any sinner. But no church must be compelled to give approval to any sin, either.

There are already laws such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in place in 19 other states. That is almost 40 percent of the country. These states seem strangely bereft of any boycotting on the part of those who are anti-Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It has been a very long time since I have seen any alleged discussion as has been about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act with so much incivility and raw hatred. And the vast majority of it seems to be coming from those against the act.

I like to think that we can be better than that.

You are free to agree or disagree with me as you wish. Regardless, Jesus loves you and so do I.

Read More

You voted Republican last month? Why?

I'm going to say something right now, and I don't care if it offends ANY body.  If it happens to offend you, good: maybe you NEED offending to open your eyes...

There is NO difference at all between the Democrat and Republican parties and anyone who puts the SLIGHTEST amount of trust in one party or the other... and I'm going to single out those who support the Republican party especially... are worse than fools and idiots.

For the past few days I've watched the Republicans, AKA the party that was just elected to "fix things" in the House and Senate, PISS AWAY their alleged ideals and principles by caving-in to Obama and everything he's demanded, especially in the way of the "amnesty" for the ILLEGAL aliens who have BROKEN THE LAW and are STILL breaking the law in being here.

The elections last month mean NOTHING.  Think I'm wrong?  Watch the incoming class of freshman representatives: by and large they already support John Boehner: by far the most useless Speaker of the House in American history.  He has foiled efforts to reign-in the government at every turn.  In a sane country there would have been a vote of no-confidence in this a$$hole's "leadership".  And now the "conservative" leaders of the Republican party have given their alleged enemy Obama all the money he needs to fund shamnesty.  Boehner and his fellow "Republicans" have done NOTHING to end Obamacare.  And they never will.

To those of you who voted for the Republican party last month and seriously, seriously thought you were doing something to change the country for the better: what ARE you smoking?

You aren't doing a damn thing to turn around America by still voting for the Republican party.  Or for the Democrat party.  Or for ANY party.  We are in this mess because too many people... and yes some of YOU reading this... haven't engaged the brains that GOD Himself gave you and trusted you to use.  You thought that you could let a party of all things think for you... and this is where it has brought us.

You thought that voting Republican was your "Christian duty"?!  People who are that way are worse than useless.  De-friend me on Facebook if that honks you off too much.  I'm dealing with realities, not illusions.  There is no escaping from realities.

The reality is, too many of us have put faith in a thing of man, and not put a faith in God.  And then claimed that they are serving God by supporting something so corrupt as temporal politics.

Tonight I saw the "conservative" Republicans let this nation slide even further into turmoil and decay.  All that they care about is their position, is their power.  The elections last month mean nothing now and they will mean even less a few months from now.

This country is run by idiots who really think that they're doing something meaningful by throwing their trust and faith behind political parties who do nothing but sell out the American people at every step of the way.

God help us.

In so many words: we have been BETRAYED.  And we will consistently be betrayed, by those who are supposedly appointed to serve us.  By those who ASKED to serve us in the first place.

If THAT doesn't piss you off more than all of what I've written above, then you have significant issues as an American citizen.

Yeah, stop visiting this blog if you like.  Deem me your enemy if you wish.  I would rather that you not. But I also happen to appreciate more the company of those who refuse attempting to exist without the responsibilities of conscience.

And unfortunately, it seems there are too damn few of us left.

Read More

A Facebook post: My beliefs about politics, law enforcement (and other stuff)

 Earlier this morning, following some comments on Facebook, I posted a status articulating some thoughts about politics, government, and my take on respecting law enforcement.  Subsequently I've been feeling led to post it here as well.  It could be because I really haven't written anything here for quite a while about my beliefs on some things.

Anyway, here it is...

---

There are some people on Facebook who the better angels of my nature are struggling to keep me from referring to as "blithering idiots". Specifically, the ones demanding to know if I am "left or right".

Those who know me best know that I'm neither, and that I have long been above such... at least what I consider to be... an immature, inaccurate and childish paradigm.

I may be fiscally conservative, but I'm not a be-all, end-all "conservative". Neither have I ever thought of myself as "liberal". "Libertarian" doesn't fit either. "Anarchist" certainly doesn't.

I am merely the person God made and meant for me to be... and I will NOT be pegged as "left" or "right" or anything else on the political "spectrum". I'm not on that spectrum. I'm above it. I believe in personal freedom with responsibility. Apparently that is too much for some to comprehend.

Neither do I appreciate the insinuation that I "defend" the "wrong people" because I expect more, and better, from those who have chosen to *serve* us in an official capacity. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. There is no tier system separating "us" from "them". Neither is trust or respect inordinately bestowed on those who have chosen to take up a mark of such service. That level of respect and trust must be *earned*. It doesn't come automatically with a badge or a uniform. That kind of unquestioning "respect" is ultimately what has led to tyranny throughout too much of history.

I don't "disrespect" anybody. But if someone wishes to bear a mark of distinction from others, then they'd damn well better LIVE UP to that with honor. I am an Eagle Scout. Every day I do my best to live up to what that means. I can't add to the honor of that, but I certainly can take away from it. I don't want to do that, because if I did that would bring the honor of a lot of people - who I consider better than I - into question. The same holds true for law enforcement, or anyone else who puts on a uniform. There are some among those who "get" that. There are too many who don't. And lately more than a few of them are taking away from the honor of those that do strive to live up to that honor.

Yet some have recently implied that I'm worse than "wrong" because I choose to question the honor of anyone at all.

We, each of us, are citizens of this country. It is the responsibility of each of us to respect the rights of others and to uphold the Constitution. There are some who have ostensibly chosen to make doing so a paid career of that. If so, then they SHOULD be held to a higher standard than other citizens. They SHOULD be held accountable for what they do with the power and authority entrusted them.

I don't say that out of disrespect toward anyone. But neither can I ascribe a "respect" that is synonymous with fear, toward those who believe they must be feared because of their chosen profession. I can't disrespect, but neither is my respect so cheaply gained. Neither should it be for anyone else.

I believe in accountability on the part of ALL of us, without partiality.

Just as I will not only NOT be branded as "left" or "right" or whatever, and in fact I loathe those who demand that of me.

I am simply what God has led me to be after much life and experience. I am what He would have me to be.

And if others don't have the capacity or the desire to understand that, then that's their problem, not mine.

Read More

American Inquisition: Holder's Justice Department demanding "tips" on George Zimmerman

This has been news for a couple of days now, but the reason I held off posting about it is that I wanted to do some historical investigation first.  And you know what I found out?

To the very best of my understanding, there has not been a single instance before this week of the United States federal government setting up a hotline or e-mail address asking the public and organizations for information against an individual citizen.  Not one.  And if anybody reading this does know of one, feel free to write me at theknightshift@gmail.com and better my education on the matter.

George Zimmerman was acquitted this past

Eric Holder:
Roland Freisler would have been proud of him.

Saturday night of all charges against him in the death of Trayvon Martin.  Zimmerman had been charged with second-degree murder.

And now, not being content with a jury of his peers finding the man not guilty, Attorney General Eric Holder has directed the United States Department of Justice to solicit "tips" about George Zimmerman from "civil rights groups" and the general public.  Holder's people are searching for "evidence" which would put Zimmerman up on federal "civil rights charges".

In other words: the Obama Administration has officially designated George Zimmerman to be an enemy of the state.

Holder's Justice Department is declaring war against a single American who was found not guilty and who the Federal Bureau of Investigation stated that they had "no evidence" he was a racist.

The Obama White House is engaging in activity which makes those of Nixon's in the Watergate scandal positively pale in comparison.

Among everything else that is so wrong with this (including what could strongly be considered violation of ex post facto) I must wonder aloud: could this be a case of using the weight of the federal government to perpetrate an act of racial injustice?  All of this seems motivated primarily by the ethnicity of the respective parties in the case: Martin being black and Zimmerman, a Hispanic.

"Justice is blind", it has been said.  Yet Holder's Justice Department is behaving, to any rational observer, with racial prejudice against an American citizen and to an unprecedented degree of official action.

And if the government can do this to George Zimmerman, it can very well choose to do this to anyone else.  Including me.  Or you.

Read More

Look! Real Third Amendment case! A story that will boil your blood...

'Fess up: how many of us laughed about the Third Amendment when we learned about it (or were supposed to have learned about it) in ninth grade?

The Quartering Act, 1763.

(Chris raises his hand)

The Third Amendment - part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution - reads thusly: "No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

But an incident two years ago which is just now coming to light in court demonstrates how much we should appreciate our rights, whether or not we actively employ them  Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell, were asked by the police department of Henderson, Nevada for the use of their homes in a "domestic violence" investigation.  All three members of the Mitchell family declined, saying they did not wish to become involved.

The Henderson Police Department took their homes anyway.

From Reason.com:

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.

Anthony Mitchell was charged with "obstructing an officer".  His father Michael was arrested while trying to leave a police command center which the cops lured him under false pretense so they could seize his house, too.

The Mitchells are suing the Henderson Police Department for violations of their Third and Fourth Amendment rights as well as "assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress".

If the allegations are true, here's hoping that the Mitchells will bankrupt the Town of Henderson for allowing this to happen.  As for the cops themselves: in a sane world they would be taken to the village square and horsewhipped forty times as a dire warning to any who would wear and then abuse the badge of peace officer.

(That's a huge part of the problem right there: that we no longer have "peace officers" but "law enforcement officers".  There are many in this country who have come to believe that cops are becoming a government sanctioned gang of thugs not much different from the Bloods 'n the Crips.  Stories like this make it hard not to see some merit to that notion.)

Read More

A pledge against allegiance to man

I can no longer, in good conscience and in keeping to my faith in God, recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

This is a choice which I have abided for nearly a year.  At various times I have felt led to articulate my reasons for doing so.  Indeed, this past fall a friend helped me to record a video about my decision to never again say the Pledge of Allegiance (we filmed it at Guilford Courthouse Battleground, in front of the statue of General Nathaniel Greene, for what it’s worth).

Recent events have brought me to a place where at last I am compelled to write about why I’m not only refraining from the Pledge of Allegiance, but have come to see it as representing too much of what is wrong with America, and even in dire opposition to the vision of the Founders.

I first learned the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school.  At that age, one absorbs and trusts everything the teachers expects one to learn.  For years, decades even, I spoke the words without really knowing what they meant, much less where they came from.  In fact, how many Americans do know where the Pledge came from?

I didn’t know until about ten years ago, and that was the beginning of my questioning the Pledge and whether, as a follower of Christ and a citizen of this country, it was something I should invoke.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy: a socialist, and arguably a racist and anti-Catholic.  But none of those are germane to my individual illumination about the Pledge.  Neither is it that Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance as part of a marketing scheme for Youth’s Companion magazine to sell thousands of American flags to schools throughout the country.

No, what aroused my conscience most was that Bellamy – a Baptist minister by trade, incidentally – wanted the Pledge to convey and instill the concept that obedience to country and government is a “virtue”.

I do not believe that.  I do not believe that at all.  Because that runs fully against the meaning of the Constitution of the United States: a contract which establishes a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Bellamy – as too many Christians do today – interpreted Jesus’ instruction to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) to mean that Christians must be completely subservient to temporal government.  I have heard many insist that to disobey government in any way is to disobey, disparage and disrespect God.  So ingrained and unquestioned is this position that I have even heard of a minister who said he must allow his wife to be raped within his own house by federal agents, if they were to so intrude upon his home.

What is neglected or forgotten or ignored is what Jesus was teaching about responsibility to God.  Jesus wasn’t telling His followers to obey man’s government without question.  That would have put Him falling into the trap set by the Pharisees.  His reply was something that hurt far more.  He reminded the Pharisees and those of the law that because they had not rendered unto God first, they had to render unto Rome.  The people of Israel were under the yoke of a foreign power when they could have instead been a free nation under the God of their forefathers.

Some Christians in this nation don’t want to understand that.  But it’s true: there is no “Caesar” in America.  If there was, We the People murdered him and took his place, with the blessings of Providence

How is it that we have resurrected Caesar?  Are we now like the children of Israel, who cried at Moses to lead them back into the “safety” of bondage to Pharaoh?  Trusting not in God but in a government wrought with corruption?

I don’t mean “imperfection”.  No government under this sun is going to be perfect, and it would be the height of arrogance to think otherwise.  I’m talking corruption.  Power without restraint.   Power for sake of power, eager and willing to waste and devour and murder to maintain that power.  To remain in control.

Read the words of the Pledge of Allegiance:

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

I can’t speak those words anymore, because those are the words of a colossal lie.

The United States is not a republic.  It hasn’t been for a very long time.  The citizens of America haven’t been in control of their own destinies for decades.   It is now a government grown too big, too powerful, too corrupt.  And corruption looks after itself.  The professional politicians.  The “journalists” lusting to be within the spheres of influence more than the pursuit of truth.   The “academics” who sacrifice education to indoctrination.  The unethical among corporations and banks who exploit the system entrusted them to steal billions of dollars... and when found out, use their pull to create new exploits, still.

This is a country whose laws now protect the corrupt from the innocent, and not the innocent from the corrupt.

It is insanity that a free people could ever give such as these, and far too many more, their absolute trust and loyalty.  And yet, we have. We have witnessed it and witness it anew every day.   And it matters not in the slightest which “party” is in control of this or that branch of government. The American people have suffered at least... at least... twenty years and counting of the most incompetent, the most selfish, the most freedom-loathing, and the most destructive executive leadership in United States history.  From the Oval Office on down, we have come to be “represented” by the self-serving, the narcissistic, the soulless and the mad.

Don’t believe me?  Read the headlines of the past few months.  The Internal Revenue Service is revealed to be a weapon against those who would challenge the status quo.  Our private communications, our finances and even our medical records are now being monitored by people we will never know and will never see.  Searches now happen on a “hunch”, not with a warrant.  We are now forced to have our DNA testify against ourselves in court of law.  Pointing a finger and making “bang-bang” sounds has become grounds to arrest a kindergartner.  Our borders are allowed to be overrun by the very officials who swore to defend and maintain them.  And now, judges and justices have taken it upon themselves to redefine an institution held sacred throughout six thousand years and more of human history and tradition.

For all of these things and more, there will be consequences.  If not in our own lifetime then in that of our children, and their children’s children.  “Liberty and justice for all” doesn’t exist anymore.  And if not for us now, then how can we look our offspring in the eye and still promise them these things?

That is what our government across this land has become: a force unto itself, bereft of restraint from its people.  And that is something that I will not now and will never again pledge allegiance to.  My allegiance must ever be to God, and to then serve others as He would lead me to do.   If that requires violating the rulings and legislations of mere men, then I will do so and suffer the consequences.

I can respect and appreciate what the Flag of the United States is supposed to represent.  But I will not yield my morals and my conscience to those who would wield that same flag against myself, my family and my posterity.

If I am to have a pledge, it will be a pledge which I make according to the dictates of my conscience, of what was intended by those who came before, and of the necessity of a law higher than that of man.

If I am to pledge to something, it will be toward that which was once part of what made America good, and could make it good again.

And this is now my pledge...

 Pledge of Adherence

"I pledge adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, to steward authority (God) entrusted the people from whom the Republic derives its consent, and to uphold the blessings of liberty for all."

Whether one chooses to use the word "God", I left as a matter of personal preference.  In my own case, I believe that God did give the authority of this nation to its people, and not to its government, and so I do include "God" when I have said this pledge.  But regardless of preference, the Constitution has made clear in no uncertain terms that it is the people from whom authority stems in the United States.

There it is.  I don't care what anybody else thinks of it, or thinks of me for composing it or what led me to write it to begin with.  Neither could I think any less of any person who choose to still use the Pledge of Allegiance, if that is how his or her own conscience leads them.

All I ask is that each of you reading this not take what this world presents you at face value.  That, and to never cease in applying your mind, your spirit, and your body toward the vigilance that our freedom... which too many fought and died for us to enjoy... is due.

Read More

Lois Lerner of the IRS: Fifth Amendment for me but not for thee!

This is Lois Lerner, who headed the Internal Revenue Service's exempt organizations division during the time that the IRS was singling out "tea party"-affiliated groups and other politically conservative people with audits and intimidation...

Where do these people keep coming from?

Lois Lerner of the IRS invoked the Fifth Amendment so as not to potentially perjure herself during hearings in the House of Representatives investigating her agency's unethical and illegal activities.

Every year, you and I and millions of other Americans have to file 1040 forms with the IRS.  If we don't, we go to jail.  If we withhold information on the 1040 forms, we go to jail.  If we don't sign the forms, we go to jail.  At no time does the IRS afford us the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment so as not to incriminate ourselves. 

Lois Lerner in her capacity as a high-ranking official of the Internal Revenue Service is pleading the Fifth to a congressional committee and she expects to get away free and clear from this entire mess.

You and me and everyone else must answer the IRS under threat of perjury.  This IRS official doesn't want to answer to our elected representatives and is using the Fifth Amendment as an escape clause which her agency has not and never would afford the average citizen.

If Lerner gets away with this, then she has set a legal precedent and every tax-paying citizen in the United States should follow her example.  Come next April 15th, put "I PLEAD THE FIFTH JUST LIKE IRS OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER DID" in big bold red printed letters on your tax form and send that instead.

Remember folks: the Constitution applies to every citizen in this country, not just politicians and their cronies.

Read More

There is no possible contesting it: The IRS must be abolished

The Founding Fathers would "repent in Heaven" - as John Adams threatened those early Americans - if they could see the country they founded and what has come to light in the past few days.

If anybody can tender any argument whatsoever in defense of the Internal Revenue Service, I for one wish to hear what it is.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but hey, whaddya know: the conspiracy theorists were right all along.  The United States Federal Government really has been spying on the dissidents, the disaffected and those who want less intrusion into their private lives.  Add in how the government has also been found to have been spying on Associated Press journalists and then the whole mess about Benghazi (which cost lives, mind you) and only an idiot would deny that We The People are no longer in charge and that our own government has become a colossal, reprehensible beast.

Audits.  Threats.  Intimidation.  Favoritism toward political allies.  Cover-ups.  Seizing millions of private individuals' medical records.  Bullying a conservative education group to turn over the names of high school and college students.  Not even Billy Graham's ministry has proven safe from the IRS.

Our forefathers went to war with England for far, far less than this.  They bought our liberty with their blood.  Too many of them paid the price for a freedom they knew they would never know but wanted their children and their children's children to have.

We owe their memory better than this.

Yes, Mr. Adams.  The time has come to repent in Heaven.  The government which you and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington and Madison and Morris and Calhoun and the rest gave us, doesn't exist anymore.  We had a republic and we couldn't keep it.

And now we have a "government" of thugs with all the mentality of street hoodlums, or a Mafia family.  Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano...

They may have been elected, but they are not leaders.  They aren't my leaders, anyway.  They are, at most, glorified gangsters.  Albeit gangsters with their very own Gestapo.  And lots and lots of bullets (which we still haven't been given an adequate explanation for).

The Founding Fathers never would have entertained the notion of a government agency empowered to intimidate and threaten and confiscate the property of the people of the United States... much less approved of one!

So here's how I see it as things stand tonight...

Either the Internal Revenue Service is abolished for good, obliterated totally and its entire structure laid waste.  Or, there can be no more confidence and trust that We The People can place with our own government.

This is our Runnymede, folks.  King Obama Lackland needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the pasture and told in no uncertain terms "you've gone mad with power, John.  Now sign on the dotted line and get the hell out of our way."

Say what one will for all his faults, but at least King John had enough sense to comprehend what the barons were telling him.  But then again John didn't have mega-sized computer databases, airborne drones and a secret police at his beck and call.

Either the IRS goes, and with it all its power and authority (which there is considerable evidence it was never meant to have to begin with), or there is no longer any pretending that we are living in a free nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.  There will be only government for the sake of government.

That is not the country I want my children to grow up in.

And you shouldn't want it either.

Read More

Internet sales taxes: Does the United States Senate NOT understand the Constitution?

A short while ago the members of the United States Senate voted 70 to 24 to pass the "Marketplace Fairness Act": AKA "Internet sales taxes".

The Senate has approved collecting taxes on goods sold on the Internet.  We'll examine that in just a sec.

("Marketplace Fairness Act"?  God, I hate how these people try to govern by emotion instead of intelligence...)

Anyone who voted for this bill should be removed from office at the earliest possible legal opportunity.  For one thing, it is insanity for government to be levying more taxes upon us at a time when you and I and most other Americans are being obligated to tighten our belts.  How much more do our supposed "representatives" believe we can take?

But what is most on my mind tonight is how this bill is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States.

According to Article One, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate n the House..."

Why then is a bill for raising revenue now originating in the Senate and not only that but has been approved??

I do not have time to watch C-SPAN but I wonder: were there any senators who brought up this fact during debate on the bill?

In a sane world, the House of Representatives would reject the bill from even being admitted into its presence, given how it's unconstitutional.  But I seriously doubt that will happen (though it should).  Barring that, the House should overwhelmingly defeat it.  If it does pass though and President Obama signs it, the obvious thing in this blogger's mind is that the Supreme Court should strike it down.

The Supreme Court shouldn't have to do that though, given that any fifth grader would tell you that the bill has been unconstitutional to begin with.

Y'know, there could be a lot of trouble saved if those in government just followed the directions instead of pulling stuff like this out of their collective ass...

Read More

Thoughts about public prayer at the Rockingham County Board of Education

At last night's monthly work meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Education, the proposal was put forth that the board should begin each session with prayer.  It's been a longstanding custom to have a moment of silence.  If the board approves of it at the May 13th meeting, that would be replaced with a public prayer before an official function of government.

Here's the story from today's News & Record...

Board members spent nearly an hour talking through the finer points of whether they should open meetings with prayer. It was discussion that at times became tense but never contentious.

The school board currently opens its meetings with a moment of silence. Board member Ron Price asked the board to consider adding prayers during the last meeting.

The members will vote on the issue May 13

The possibility of a lawsuit was brought up Monday night by board member Amanda Bell. She said she doesn’t want to put the school board at risk

Fellow member Leonard Pryor also echoed those concerns.

“It’s my firm opinion we’ll be sued,” Pryor said

Earlier this month, legislators proposed a bill allowing for the establishment of an official state religion. The bill, which died in committee, was a reaction to a recent lawsuit against Rowan County, whose Board of Commissioners insist on having explicitly Christian prayers before meetings

Forsyth County lost a similar lawsuit in 2011, and the state Supreme Court refused to hear the case last year

Guilford County commissioners are currently reviewing their prayer policy

Price said there is a way to have an invocation without crossing the legal line

“We have to have a format before we can say, ‘OK, we can do this without violating the court’s decision,’ ” Price said.

I'm of a few opinions about this, and they're not necessarily contradictory.

Of immediate concern is that adopting a policy of prayer before the meetings will make the Board of Education wide-open bait for a lawsuit.  And don't think that there are already "civil rights" lawyers who've already gotten a whiff of blood about it, too.  Are the board members prepared for a long, drawn-out legal battle which will cost the taxpayers of Rockingham County money which, I hate to say, we are sorely lacking at the moment?

However, I'm also of the mind that this should not be fodder for a lawsuit at all... because it's not really a matter for outsiders to come and meddle with at all.

I've never understood how something like prayer at events like public meetings, high school football games and the like could ever be an infringement of the rights of any person, or group of people.  We are a constitutional republic, one purpose of which is to defend the minority from the depredations of a majority.  It's why as a whole we aren't a pure democracy.  But so far as public prayer goes: what is there to be defended, at all?

It's like this: so long as it is not a violation of the rights and privileges a person has as defined by the Constitution, there is a lot of leeway for a local unit of government on such matters as choosing whether or not to open a hearing with prayer.  Or a moment of silence.  Or nothing at all.

The way it should be is that the people of Rockingham County will let the board members know what they - the citizens - wish in this regard.  And then the Board of Education will discuss and vote from there.  If by and large the people of Rockingham County approve of it, then there can and should be prayer before the meetings (preferably with a rotating roster of local clergy).  If people disagree, then they should lobby to change the policy.  If they believe it is important enough then individuals should take it upon themselves to run for seats on the Board of Education in the next election.  In fact, I would even suggest that the current board members be made aware of that... and in no uncertain terms!  There is a lot to be said of accountability from your publick officials when they realize their actions can lead to possible unseat-ment.

Again, this is a local matter.  One that we ourselves, the citizens of Rockingham County, should define for ourselves.  If there was a public school district in, say, a predominantly Catholic area in New Jersey and the board chose to reflect and respect the population it serves, it should be free to ask a Catholic priest to offer a prayer of invocation at its meetings.  Our friends in Utah should be free to let a Mormon minister do likewise at their hearings.  The same holds true for a predominantly Jewish community, if it would like a rabbi to bless each meeting.  In Rockingham County's case, it's safe to say that we are quite a melting pot of various perspectives about God... but for all intents and purposes this is a community that does have a faith in God.  We may not agree with all the particulars about Him, and whoever is asked by the board should understand and appreciate that.  But if we as a locality desire to ask for His wisdom and guidance in our public hearings, then we should be afforded that liberty... and without the fear of lawsuit from external interests!

However, there is one last thing I wish to be considered: that asking God for that wisdom and guidance doesn't begin with any action or permission within the halls of any earthly government.

I have no reason to believe that a public prayer before a school board meeting, a county commissioners meeting or a session of the United States Senate is going to be any more sacred than a prayer each and every person offers to God in quiet solitude at home, or beneath a tree, or wherever a person happens to feel they need to be for that communion.  We can let a minister speak to God on our behalf at a public meeting, but we listen to God best when we are alone with Him.

In other words: a public prayer is of little or no good if the people sanctioning it can not and will not pray to Him on their own.

It was once said that America is great because her people are a virtuous people.  But we have come to expect, even demand a "virtue by proxy".  Many of us petition and scream for public prayer, or a display of the Ten Commandments in the courthouses and schoolhouses, or that a Christian cross be put up in a city-owned park.

I have no problem with any of those things whatsoever.  I do however have a lot of problem when such material symbols take upon greater importance than the meaning behind them.  We have more desire to see a thing with our eyes than to have a thing inscribed upon our hearts...

...and that is what I would ask the members of the Rockingham County Board of Education to consider, as well as any who are considering similar measures.

Read More

Damnable 100th Anniversary to the federal income tax!

Today officially marks one century of extortion at the point of a gun by the Internal Revenue Service!

It was on this day, February 3rd 1913, that the 16th Amendment was allegedly ratified (there exists substantial evidence that the amendment was not passed per due process by enough states, that and then-Secretary of State Philander Knox's declaration that the amendment was "in effect").

The 16th reads...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

We do not need the income tax and never have. This country did fine for more than a century with tariffs. And it would do just as fine now... or better.

It is far past time that the American citizens call the income tax for what it is: a shackle holding us down. Just think about the countless billions of man-hours of lost productivity during the past hundred years, wasted on simply adhering to the increasingly byzantine tax code. Think about how much better this country could have been had We The People had more of our own money to spend as we saw fit. Think about the outrageous gall that the government has, that it has believed (and had upheld within its own courts) for so long that it can take our hard-earned money from us at the point of a gun (figuratively and literally).

What has come to bother me most about the income tax? That it has created a mentality of class warfare in America, when there had been none before. Not really, at least not enough to significantly matter. But don't raise your hopes on politicians seeing that. If anything too many of them love the income tax for that very reason. It keeps the constituents divided, confused, angry at each other... and easier to play on emotion and exploit for votes.

The United States will not see true prosperity until the income tax is not just revoked, but thoroughly eradicated. Shredded. Burned. The ashes dumped in the desert and the ground sown with salt. And a pox upon the houses of those who have imposed it upon us!

Someday, in the not-too-distant future, mayhap my children will read the words I write this afternoon, and ask me "Daddy, what was an 'income tax'?" If that happens, I will be able to die a happier man.

An America where our children will not know an income tax.

If it's not for us to see better days in our time, then it's damned well worth it to fight now so that they can see them tomorrow.

Read More

Gun control lunacy: Feinstein would take YOUR weapon but keep hers, and the modern cost of saving a life

Senator Dianne Feinstein - a person who exemplifies the absolute worst that an elected official could possibly be - is trying to ram through another gun control bill on Capitol Hill. It would take away dang nearly every firearm that We The People have as articulated in the Second Amendment... EXCEPT for her own and those of other government officials.

So lemme get this straight: Feinstein, who owns a pistol or two herself, wants legislation that will prohibit the "little people" from having guns but also wants to keep her own.

I am trying to be a man of polite society so I will refrain from using the word that many will be tempted to use in describing Feinstein. I can at least say with no small degree of accuracy "rank hypocrisy".

And then from the D.C. area there is the story of a man who several days ago came across a pack of pit bulls trying to maul a little boy to death.

The man fired his handgun at the dogs, saving his young neighbor's life.

And for his valiant act of courage the man is now facing an "illegal weapon" charge because of Washington D.C.'s insane gun control laws. He faces a year in prison and $1000 in fines.

Let's get this straight: the D.C. prosecutors would rather this guy not have a gun at the cost of a dead eleven-year old. Am I getting that right?

If a jury convicts this dude, I will have lost most of the hope that's still there for America.

But not all hope, if more local sheriffs vow to refuse to comply with federal gun laws that would deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Read the new piece by Chuck Baldwin at the link for the encouraging words from people across the fruited plain to those inside the Beltway.

And the words are: "Hell no."

Read More

When firearm magazines are outlawed...

Handgun and rifle magazines are selling out at Wal-Mart and other retailers and the prices for them are soaring on eBay and other sites. One gun shop in Charlotte did more than $1 million in sales yesterday: the most it's had in over half a century of business. With the increasing likelihood that the Obama Administration and too much of Congress are going to attempt restrictions on guns and magazines, people are gettin' it while the gettin's good.

So I can't help but think: a magazine isn't much more than a metal box with a spring. Come to think of it, that's all a magazine is. I could very easily manufacture a rough but working magazine - holding as much ammo as I wish - in a machine shop. Apart from the spring, EVERYTHING that I'd need to produce a magazine in an hour or so's time is within ready reach of me.

Hey, I've made knives. Making parts for guns would be the next logical step. And there are many with far greater skills who could produce not just the magazines but full-working guns, and possibly mass-produce them at that.

Not to mention that rapid-prototyping - AKA "3D printing" - is already allowing for production of magazines and other gun parts on your desktop. Before very long if you want a gun, you'll be able to download one from the Internet. Literally.

I'm guessing that if government restrictions are placed on firearms and magazines, that there will be a vast underground market for those produced in home shops etc. And every one of them will be unregistered and untraceable.

I'm just sayin', is all...

Read More

Robert Bork has passed away

Look, I know about the guy's role in the Saturday Night Massacre. There were a number of beliefs that he held to which I do now and always will vehemently disagree with, particularly with his stance on jury nullification. He also was way off about the Second Amendment, holding to the notion that it was intended for participating in government-sanctioned militias.

But I've also long believed that in spite of those and many more qualms about the man, Robert Bork truly - as best he understood - adhered to the highest principles in respect to law and the Constitution.

And claims from petty politicians (like Ted Kennedy) aside, it must be agreed by all: Bork was a brilliant jurist in every sense.

Judge Robert H. Bork passed away this morning at the age of 85.

Thoughts and prayers going out to his family.

And I have to wonder today - as I have many times over the years - what the United States Supreme Court would have been like if Bork had been on the bench.

Read More

EVERYONE in U.S. under virtual surveillance by federal government (and why)

The government of the United States is not of the people, by the people and for the people. And it has not been for a very long time. Maybe not even in the memory of anyone alive today. We all know it. Unfortunately there seems to be damned little we can do about it. But having spent most of my life as a historian I also know that the established order can and eventually will be overthrown, no matter where or when. Either by outright revolt or crashing down under its own weight.

What is the "established order" controlling America? Steve McCann at American Thinker has a thorough understanding of it: an entrenched system of career politicians, sellout journalists whose lust for limelight eclipses love of truth, elitist academic types depending on the public treasury to justify their inflated sense of self-important, lobbyists and crony capitalists with a vested interest in making sure things stay the way they are, political hacks...

Corruption looks after itself.

That's why it should come as no surprise that according to a former top encryption analyst with the National Security Agency, the United States government - through the Federal Bureau of Investigation - is compiling the mother of all data mines: a vast repository containing EVERY e-mail, tweet, text message and God knows what else sent by American citizens. WITHOUT the Constitution-mandated search warrants for such a thing.

What surprises me however, is that if William Binney is telling is us true, then it represents a brazenness we haven't seen yet from our own government. It's been the understanding of many who have researched such things that for at least the past decade the National Security Agency has employed a system called ECHELON to monitor communications not just within America but throughout the world. Indeed, it's the international scope of ECHELON which has allowed the NSA to keep a listening ear on American at all: ECHELON keeps tabs on phone calls and electronic exchanges between the geographical United States and other countries... which, the government argues, does not require judge-approved warrants. A colossal using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Not that that should be a surprise either...

But according to Mr. Binney, our government has taken it to a whole new level of abuse:

The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

(snip)

"...what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

(snip)

"It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Bluffdale [database facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it."

A long read, but technically rich and altogether persuasive.

Why must our government believe it has to look upon We The People as potential enemies to be numbered, catalogued and monitored?

Because to those in power, the established order must be preserved at all cost. Because, again, corruption looks after itself.

Personally, I think Batman had the right idea...

Even the Caped Crusader "gets it" (click to enlarge)

Someday, perhaps this country will crash hard enough to knock the lechers and parasites off of their lofty perch. Perhaps then true leadership will come to serve the American people. There would be few better gestures of faith in the common citizen than to abolish the National Security Agency, reign-in the FBI and give the CIA a good hairy eyeball.

Read More

American politics: How to level the playing field

The game is rigged. We all know it.

So why do we tolerate it?

America owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least the Soviets had one party rule and were honest about it.

Tomorrow is the national election day in the United States. But nothing will substantially change as a result of it. The two major parties, corporate interests and the mainstream media have perpetrated a massive con on the American people: making us believe that there are only two parties that count when in truth they are much the same.

I will not be voting for either one of the two major candidates for President. Neither of them has done anything to earn my trust. I will vote for another. Some may call that "throwing your vote away". I disagree.

Any vote from one's earnest conscience is a valid one. As I see it, it is the straight-ticket vote which is the real wasted vote. Anybody who blindly and without question votes straight down a party ticket is wasting their vote. Worse: they are shirking the responsibility of freedom that too many men and women fought and died so that they might have said freedom.

I won't go back to being a slave of the system. Long ago I saw it for what it really is: a machine keeping most Americans intellectually hostage, when every one of us can choose liberation over captivity.

It is not easy. But it is worth it.

The system is broken. The system has no vitality left to it. All that is left is stagnation. America is a nation of political and philosophical vacuum among its leadership. The damn system has been made to keep out people with new and refreshing thoughts and ideas.

I'm going to have to answer to my children someday about why this country is the way that it is. I'll be damned if I have to tell them that I didn't do my best to leave them a world just a little bit better than how it was when I came into it.

So what would I suggest that could reinvigorate the United States and make this a land of true freedom and place of ideas and opportunity again?

Pass a new amendment to the Constitution. It could even be considered an amendment to Amendment One. It would read thusly...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of political party.
In one fell swoop, partisan politics would be eliminated. There would be no more favoritism toward one party or toward two parties or toward any other.

Come to think of it, Amendment One might already outlaw favoritism toward political parties. I've seen plenty enough Christians who think that voting Republican is a God-ordained ordinance. The same with a lot who vote Democrat with theistic zeal. Political parties are the only religion a lot of people seem to have. But all the same, clarifying the point would not be a bad thing.

Keep in mind that this amendment does not outlaw political parties. Parties would and should exist, if people want them as a coalescence of common notion. They would be de-fanged. But as organs of nomination, they would be even welcome, because...

Candidate party affiliation will be removed from the ballot.  No more "D"s and "R"s on the ticket.  No more "I"s either, because they simply wouldn't be needed. If a candidate meets the criteria to be put on a state's ballot (which should be reasonable for all prospective candidates), then he or she is on the ballot... but as himself or herself, and not as a representative of a party. It would make straight-ticket voting impossible. It would also force a lot of people who haven't done it nearly enough to be informed and think critically before casting a ballot.

And when it comes to Presidential elections...

The Commission on Presidential Debates will no longer be the sponsor of Presidential debates.  The debates used to be the province of the League of Women Voters. Then the Democrats and Republicans colluded in 1988 to create the Commission on Presidential Debates. It was the proverbial wolves guarding the henhouse. The commission is controlled solely by Democrats and Republicans as a "bipartisan" organization, with funding (most of it secret) from a number of major corporations. Of course these are the only Presidential debates that the major news media choose to cover.

So, disband the commission. And let every candidate who has been qualified to appear on the ballot in each of the fifty states take part. That means that candidates nominated from the Libertarian, the Constitution and other significant parties would be welcomed on the same stage as the Democrats and Republicans... while the truly radical parties with agendas running counter to democracy and capitalism (such as the Communist Party USA) would in all likelihood never appear. I mean, they could theoretically with enough support... but it is not a fair and honest battleground of ideas when only two parties collude to lock out all legitimate competition.

Don't think that will work? Believe that more than two parties would only bring on confusion and discord?

Abraham Lincoln was one of four candidates who were listed on the ballot in the 1860 election. Lincoln only received just shy of 40% of the vote.

Do I believe that this is a country with thoughtful leadership that would seek to implement such measures?

I believe that it could be.

But I am realist enough to know that it is next to impossible. Corruption looks after itself, after all.

But as for myself, I can still choose to think for myself. To follow my own conscience. And if I am so led, to cast a vote against the demands of those around me.

I can't put it any better than how Captain America did when he spoke to Spider-Man during Marvel's Civil War arc...

Click to enlarge

Here I am.

"No. You move."

Read More

Brilliant essays by Chuck Baldwin: Christian warmongers and American comfort

Chuck Baldwin, Christian writer and thinker extraordinaire, is always a treat to read. But his two most recent columns, I found to be especially illuminating.

First there is this one from last week: "They Prefer Caviar, Even If It Comes With Chains", in which Baldwin articulates why too many Americans... including far too many American Christians... have given up the risks of liberty for the comfort of security and in doing so have ended up as slaves. To amplify the point he uses a story from the Book of Acts...

There is an Old Testament story that parallels with what is going on in America today. The story is found in Numbers chapter 11. God had delivered His people from great bondage. They witnessed His mighty hand of power and deliverance in defeating their oppressors and leading them toward a land of promise and liberty. He even dropped “angels’ food” (called manna) from Heaven to sustain them. But after being delivered from bondage, they began to yearn for a return to Egypt. In verse 5 of that chapter, the people are recorded as complaining, “We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” (KJV)

Can you believe it? After hundreds of years of floggings, imprisonments, beatings, chains, and slavery, they remember FISH? I don’t know if caviar was considered a delicacy back in those days. If it wasn’t, I suppose it’s possible that slaves ate fish eggs also. But can you believe it? After being delivered from the worst possible slavery, all they remembered was the fish? Holy Creepers, Batman!

Now, to understand what’s going on here, we have to read verse 4, “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also.”

I have heard countless sermons on this passage, and in all honesty I cannot remember one that identified what they were lusting after. Lust here means “to covet greatly.” So, what were they coveting? Was it food? Was it the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic? No! What they coveted, what they lusted after, was SECURITY!

In the wilderness, there was risk, uncertainty, and potential failure. They had to depend totally on divine Providence. They could not see what the morrow would hold. There were no guarantees, no entitlements, and no assurances. And even though God had delivered them with great power, sustained them daily with manna, and promised them a land of freedom of their very own, they lusted after security. To them, security was more important than liberty.

If this story does not parallel with what is happening in America right now, nothing does! God delivered the American people out of great bondage. He proved His power and might on our behalf. He gave us a land of liberty of our very own. And now all Americans seem to be able to think about are the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of bondage. They lust for, and greatly covet, SECURITY.

It seems that there is no usurpation of liberty so egregious that the American people, both churched and un-churched, will not gladly accept, as long as it is presented to them as a way to make them feel more secure. In truth, so many Americans–especially so many of those who call themselves Christians–are practicing idolaters. They are worshipping at the altar of safety and security. Big Government politicians and bureaucrats are the priests, the Department of Homeland Security is the temple, and the taxes, fees, and assessments are the tithes and offerings. Hallelujah!

There is much more that Baldwin writes, and It's all well worth the time to read it.

And this week, Baldwin is asking "How Did Christians Become Warmongers?"

And I realize that right now the vast majority of evangelicals eat, breathe, and sleep only one mantra: “Get rid of Obama!” They would vote for anybody to beat Obama. Well, anybody except Ron Paul, that is. Evangelicals might hate Ron Paul more than they do Barack Obama. And after Mitt Romney is elected on November 6, these same “Christians” will go into a state of extended hibernation, ignoring every unconstitutional big-government decision that Romney makes. Not only that, buckle your seat belts boys and girls, because Romney is going to expand America’s foreign wars (and the emerging police state at home) like nobody’s business. And when he does, guess what? Evangelicals will be the ones who clap and cheer the most.

Let me ask my Christian brethren some questions: does God give governmental leaders a pass on obeying His moral laws? If God will hold you and me accountable to His command to not murder, for example, will He not hold our civil magistrates accountable to His command to not murder? Or do you really believe that murder is justified on the word of a king? If so, had you been alive in Hitler’s Germany, you would have supported his atrocities, too, right? And is that whom you think occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: a king? Is murder justified simply because a magistrate orders it? And if that’s true, is it then justified that government forces pillage, plunder, and rape? If not, why not? After all, if it’s lawful for men to murder on the command of a magistrate, why can they not pillage, plunder, and rape? What’s the difference?

Accordingly, I personally believe that evangelicals owe Bill Clinton an apology. They excoriated him when it came to light that he had committed adultery. They then turned around and supported G.W. Bush’s unconstitutional, unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Pray tell, if a President is exempt from the moral law against shedding innocent blood (Genesis 9:6; Proverbs 6:17) why should he not be exempt from the moral law against adultery?

Believe it or not, a local pastor here in the Flathead Valley of Montana recently preached a message to his congregation on Romans 13 with the typical erroneous “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” claptrap. When a member of his congregation later asked him personally to explain himself, he told the parishioner, “If government agents or troops came to my house and laid my wife on the kitchen table and raped her, Romans 13 tells me I cannot resist.” That’s what he said, folks. I’m not making it up.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!

Read the rest of this most fine article here.

Read More