Thank you for visiting. My thoughts & Feelings are my Own.
Here I will share my feelings about America and her Future.
Let it be known to all the World, I love all Humankind, however the poor actions of the few that take away the Freedom's of the many wear on my soul. I don't hate them I feel sad for their foolishness before God and humankind.
Those leaders who seek to 'Keep their Oaths of office' and those who seek only self glory, power, tyranny and the destruction of America as it was founded, hoping to turn it into a Dictatorship, Marxist or other state of Tyranny.
For a long while I was unsure of putting a blog together with my thoughts on this, however Truth must be shared, if not to Awake American's to their dangerous situation then to record the folly of the ways of the wicked who do exist in the leadership of our Nation, States, Counties, Towns. Sad that I must add this page.
"We often search for things in life, yet seldom do we find.
Those things in life that really matter, until we make the time." S.T.Huls
God Bless the Republic of America!
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Utah Governor Gary Herbert and State’s Rights - Will he stand against Non Constitutional Federal Law? maybe not?
Information from: Government Principles
Remember, that federal law is “territorial” and the legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government is limited to strictly defined areas, Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. “In principle, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) is not addressed to subject matter, but to specific geographical locations.” See U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 336 (1818). Only with the consent of the States, does that jurisdiction enter in to the territory of the individual States. To quote from clause 17 of section 8, Article I; “. . . to exercise like Authority (exclusive legislation) over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State . . . .”
This concept of territorial jurisdiction received added clarity by a Supreme Court decision, U.S. v Lopez, (No. 93-1260) decided April 26, 1995. The decision was given by Chief Justice Rehnquist as the case centered around the abuse of Congressional authority in relationship to the Commerce Clause contained in the Constitution. The central theme conveyed by this decision was that there are limits to Congressional authority. Justice Thomas treats this concept even more in quoting from a 1992 decision (New York v United States, 505 U.S. 144) delivered by Justice O’Connor: “‘No one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers’ (cited quotes omitted). It must necessarily be so, because the United States (government) has no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them.’ . . . Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power.” Continuing, Justice Thomas makes clear that: “. . . Congress has plenary power over the District of Columbia and the territories. The grant of comprehensive legislative power over certain areas of the Nation, when read in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution, further confirms that Congress was not ceded plenary authority over the whole Nation.” A lot more could be said on territorial jurisdiction, but this should suffice.
“It follows from this review of the clause, that the states cannot take cognizance of any acts done in the ceded places after the cession; and, on the other hand, the inhabitants of those places cease to be inhabitants of the state, and can no longer exercise any civil or political rights under the laws of the state. But if there has been no cession by the state of the place, although it has been constantly occupied and used, under purchase, or otherwise, by the United States for a fort, arsenal, or other constitutional purpose, the state jurisdiction still remains complete and perfect.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 3:§§ 1212–22; 1833 § 1222.
Within their boarders, the States are supreme authority guided by the U.S. Constitution, which is applicable to them also (Amendment X) and the laws of the Federal Government made “in pursuant” to the Constitution. At present there is no language in the Constitution which directs the Federal Government to regulate the type of guns that individuals may own or how many bullets the gun can hold. I would suppose that if an individual wanted to and could afford it, they could buy a tank. Where the Constitution is silent the federal government is prohibited in entering.
In U.S. v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 11, the Court declared: “It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general [federal] Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive.”
“The consent requirement of Article I, section 8, clause 17 was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the State’s jurisdictional integrity against federal encroachment. The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,”
The law’s of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. (Caha v US, 152 U.S. 211) Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority. (Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244)
State jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern individuals, enterprises. real and personal property’ within the boundaries of a given State. Federal jurisdiction, by contrast, is extremely limited and can be exercised only in areas external to the sovereign States unless, and until, a State has ceded a portion of its jurisdiction to the federal government.
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each newly created State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government, superior power or jurisdiction.” (M’ilvaine v Coxe’s Lessee, 8 US 209)
(Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II. at 46.)
The governors, State legislatures, sheriffs, etc., have every right and authority to protect the citizens. As has been said time and time again, the Federal Government has no police powers within the States. This principle applies to ALL federal legislation. Mr. Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party can pass all the laws they want, but only about 95% will apply to the States. And then only to “federal” areas ceded by the States. So Governor Herbert, breath easy, and tell the Obama regime where to put it! We do have and support the Constitution, which as governor, you were sworn to uphold.
Added note, some one remind the Democratic Socialist Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the Second Amendment was not just for sportsmen. It was put there to protect Americans from the tyranny of individuals, like Senator Feinstein, who want to force communism on us. I will be working on a post that will demonstrate what the future holds for this land if it continues on the path it now travels.
Editorial by Loral Glazier
Jan 25, 2013
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
See more important reports at TheNewAmerican.com.
Friday, January 25, 2013
‘Graffiti’ Scrawled All Over the New World Trade Center — But It’s Not What You Think
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
- Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
- Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
- In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
- Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
- Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."
In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."
In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.
For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.
‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense | TheBlaze.com
‘[Tyranny Is] Not a Wolf That Dies’: Our Exclusive Interview With the Air Force Vet Behind That Viral 2nd Amendment Defense
“Having no concept that– tyranny doesn’t exist, or the threat of tyranny doesn’t exist, or the word doesn’t even exist– you’re living in a utopian society…He had no grasp of the concept of why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution at all. It’s not to go hunting, it’s not to own a firearm, it’s to give the people the power to keep tyranny at bay.[Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies. It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon. It’s always looming on the horizon, and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it the way they did. And the guy had no grasp that without the Second Amendment, they would soon come after his First Amendment rights.”
“You’re an American, there’s no reason to hold your voice. We need to stand up, be proud to be Americans, be proud of our heritage, be proud of our flag, proud of our Constitution, and proud of the accomplishments of our country and [individuals]. Speak up, because nobody else is going to. If we’re a nation with a single voice, the world hears us.”
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Here is more information about the Sandy Hook Shootings, I respect TheBlaze and their research so here goes the other end of the topic after their investigation about it.
(You Can visit the link and see the multiple videos available during their debunk and reasoning as well.)Theblazes-point-by-point-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-debunk/
This Is TheBlaze’s Point-by-Point Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory Debunk
To understand the Sandy Hook websites that seem to have been published early, you must first understand the way the internet reconciles dates as well as how Google crawls them. If a page is repurposed to host other information than it originally displayed, it may show up as having been “published” earlier.Further, servers and sites often have incorrect dates. Having used a number of WordPress panels in my career, it is a job to keep track of where dates and times are set in order to avoid publishing in the past when scheduling a post, something that could be at play and an easily explainable factor not often acknowledged by Sandy Hook truthers.And given the fact material can run afoul on an individual computer, a site’s panel and then a search engine, sites like the United Way’s Sandy Hook page could easily register as a prior date on Google.
This one was debunked by the theorists themselves just a few days after the shooting. Blogger Joe Quinn obtained the police audio, which definitively debunking the myth. (Rodia appeared on the scanner because he was getting pulled over in a traffic stop miles away, but his license plate doesn’t match Lanza’s car). “This was a huge blow, because lots of people were making big leaps on this … but we now have to look elsewhere,” another amateur investigator said on YouTube.