May 27, 2018

Bank of America’s Decision to Sever Ties with Certain Gun Manufacturers Blasted by Free-Market Leader

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Refuses to Say How Much Money Investors Will Lose Because of His Decision to Join Those Who Oppose Second Amendment

Charlotte, NC/Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Bank of America investors, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted notoriously liberal banking CEO Brian Moynihan over the company’s financially irresponsible decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers.

“Moynihan and Bank of America’s leadership team have decided to place liberal virtue signaling ahead of the company’s investors,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting and confronted Moynihan. “This is a gross violation of the company’s fiduciary duty to its investors. If Moynihan wants to lobby against gun rights on his own time, that’s one thing. But he instead put Bank of America’s significant financial and institutional weight behind a policy movement aimed at harming or abolishing the Second Amendment. By using his position as CEO in such an overtly political manner, he is abdicating his responsibility to act in his company’s best interests. He doesn’t accurately speak for all of the company’s investors and customers – which surely include millions of Second Amendment supporters.”

At the meeting, Danhof noted:

[T]he company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. The company is also lending its voice to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at how another famous investor addressed this issue. CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on [our] employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with [gun folks]. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Danhof then asked:

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

To read Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, click here. (Note that Danhof shortened the question at today’s meeting due to a strict time limit that was imposed on investors – except for Jesse Jackson, who was allowed to ramble well past the time allowed.)

“Today Bank of America made it clear that it is proud to lend its voice to the anti-Second Amendment community. If you are a gun owner, a member of the National Rifle Association, in the gun or ammunition business, or simply a supporter of the Constitution, it’s my impression that Bank of America doesn’t want your business,” said Danhof. “And perhaps those constituencies ought to take the company up on that score.”

Audio of Danhof’s exchange with Moynihan is available with this link.

“I think most folks in the financial press would be interested to know why Bank of America’s Moynihan thinks he is right on this issue and Warren Buffett is wrong,” noted Danhof. “Maybe a financial journalist can follow up with the company and get an answer to that question – because it’s clear he doesn’t have enough respect for his investors to give us a straight answer.”

Following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the ensuing corporate backlash against the National Rifle Association, Danhof wrote a commentary describing corporate America’s repeated pattern of joining with the liberal cause of the day. As published in The Federalist, Danhof noted:

It’s an all too common pattern. Liberal politicians and the media take up a cause. Left-wing activist groups mobilize to pressure corporations. Corporate America joins the fray, and their support is used to bolster and justify the cause. It’s a circular echo chamber, but it’s effective…

By and large, conservative Americans leave business alone because they realize private enterprise drives the economic engine that keeps America thriving. However, as corporate America continues to join with the left to erode constitutional protections and traditional beliefs that conservatives hold dear, silence is no longer an option.

Click here to read Danhof’s entire commentary.

This meeting marks the 12th shareholder meeting of 2018 in which FEP has participated.

To book an interview with Danhof or another National Center representative, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-0269 or (703) 477-7476.

Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.

FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP’s work was prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

Danhof’s latest commentary, on the recent Walt Disney shareholder meeting where his actions resulted in Joy Behar’s public apology for suggesting Christianity is a mental illness, is available here.

Share

By Whom is “Due Process of the Law” Administered?

Pulling the “Due Process” card is about as effective as whipping out the old adage…”I have a right…” I’m guilty as are most all others, only due to ignorance I suppose.

I got thinking more about this Due Process issue after reading an article this morning by Maine Senator Eric Brakey published in the Maine Wire. The foundation of Brakey’s piece is rooted in a proposed “Community Protection Order” legislation that effectively would allow for the “unconstitutional” confiscation of “weapons” from anyone the “court” deems as a possible “problem” and/or suspect to violent behavior. What could possibly go wrong?

What’s wrong with this political ideology rolled into a bill proposal is that it smells terribly of what many of us like to refer to as the violation of “Due Process.”

Brakey writes: “…a gun confiscation order may be issued “ex-parte,” which means without any notice. No due process. No opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law.

With gun confiscation orders, you are only entitled to learn your rights have been stripped away when the SWAT team comes to your door to “collect” your guns.”

What is Due Process? Is this some magic protection act that ensures that nothing will ever go wrong? Is Due Process as effective as any other element of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

According to Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Due Process is as defined in brevity: “The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.” (emboldening added)

Written by James Hirby and published at the Black’s Law Dictionary website, we read: “Law Enforcement & Protection American criminal justice, a powerful engine of public safety and social control, operates under a balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive. The three aims of government stated in the preamble are relevant to criminal justice: (1) ‘establish justice’ – establish courts of law and other means to allow individuals to pursue justice when conflicts arise; (2) ‘insure domestic tranquility’ – create the means to suppress riots, prevent crime and secure public safety or order; and (3) ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’  Order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society yet often conflict with one another.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this all simply subjective idealism open to abuse by anyone with money and power to upset this “balanced constitutional system?” If order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society, then what happens to order and liberty when those two subjective terms no longer fit some or all of our political narratives or social ideals? Due Process be damned!!

While it is easy to claim the rights to Due Process, it is equally easy to claim the rights to keep and bear arms and the freedom of choice as to how to defend me, my family, and my property.

Due Process of the Law is nothing more than precisely what it says. Subjective idealism pounded into our brains from birth wants to incorrectly tell us that Due Process protects us from tyrannical laws (oppression) and that some mythical “balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive” guarantees us that we are protected.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

Due Process is nothing more than carrying out the laws created by our governments. We have so many terrible arguments and excuses of how the governmental entities have no right to make unconstitutional laws, yet we ignorantly cherry-pick only those bits and pieces of the Constitution that fit our own narratives, failing to understand that Congress can “make all laws which are necessary and proper” (Article I Section 8) in order to exercise the power they gave themselves when they wrote the Constitution. Congress will and does simply craft yet another law because they have the power to do so and as such render Due Process useless. It is THEIR Due Process, not yours or mine.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

What may have been your grandfather’s “Due Process” doesn’t even carry the same DNA as today’s Due Process and at the rate things are changing and that “balanced constitutional system” gets more and more out of whack – to those with sense enough to see it – we have as much hope remaining to cling to Due Process as we do the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional article that might stand in the way of the Global Power Structure.

Due Process is a subjective matter and was designed as such. Due Process is as much as society will tolerate and the government can get away with. Even though society believes that the Constitution gives them Due Process and that this “balanced constitutional system” works, they are wrong. We even constantly hear of those screaming to get out and vote in order to get those wanting to upset that “balanced constitutional system” (rigged) out of office and replaced with another clone/drone and yet, nothing ever changes. Oppression and tyranny march forward in a slow and methodical pace, hidden behind a shroud of watered-down constitutional rights and due process.

Invoking Due Process is a worthless instrument. So long as Congress “makes all laws which are necessary and proper” and voting in new blood doesn’t change anything, then we are left with but one choice – continue to convince ourselves that we are guaranteed Due Process, along with all those other “rights” meted out by men for slaves.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!

 

 

Share

When The “Democratic” Process Isn’t Quite What You Thought It Was

The majority of the people of the United States operate every day believing that they are the “We the People” as was used in the United States Constitution. The U.S. is a corporation. The Corporation drafted a constitution. Throughout our lives, we are taught that the Constitution was written for us and thus must be followed to the letter…for us. Sorry!

In essence, we are allowed to participate in the activities of the Corporation as it may benefit the Corporation. What is difficult to follow and understand is that there must be some sort of control over the masses in order for the Corporation to pull this off. Part of that control involves leading the masses to believe they are fully protected by the Constitution of the Corporation unless otherwise authorized by the Corporation.

As part of a “united” corporation, the “several” states signed on as co-conspirators to the United States Corporation. This is why many states copied the major Corporation’s Constitution.

If you’ve followed this concept in its brevity, it might be easier to understand that the processes used to control the masses, i.e. not inciting them to anger with too much revelation of the truth of their existence as subject-slaves to the Corporation, aren’t what we might think they are.

The forces at work within the corporations much work to accomplish their goals, for their purposes and not necessarily for yours and mine. Some might ask why these forces don’t simply make us do what they say? The answer is you might balk at that notion and resist. Somewhat resembling the slow-boiling frog analogy, a little taken away here and a little there and the Corporations get what they want, and the subject-slaves still think they are “We the People.” (Insert a big WINK-WINK here)

An example of what I am trying to describe here can be found in Maine. It seems that the majority party of the Maine House (it doesn’t really matter which party) blocked a common process of sending a proposed bill to a committee which would also involve a public hearing.

This is not the first time this action has taken place but it is not a common practice. As I understand the Maine Constitution, it is not required that a bill is sent to committee for debate and public hearing. It appears that when the public hearing process is bypassed, it involves controversial bills, as does the bill in question. (It is funded by George Soros)

For this discussion, it is not about the content of the bill. It’s about the “democratic” process or better yet, that process we think the Constitution guarantees us. When “We the People” want what they want, “we the people” get short-changed. It’s all part of the rigged system.

What makes this rigged system work are the useful idiots who believe in a man-created corrupt government system that they think was created for them. Even in their anger at recognizing that information in proposed new laws can easily be hidden from us citizen-slaves and be thought of as “unconstitutional,” we, in our insanity, continue to think that if we just work within the rigged system we can change the rigged system.

Many believe their power lies in the voting process. “We need to vote these people out and vote in new blood,” we are repeatedly told. That would be fine except the only choices you get to vote for come from the Party and not the people. Or the People and not the people. It’s a farce and we fall for it.

I guess the only good thing that comes out of this process is that it can slow down the total process of bringing about complete national socialism and/or communist rule.

AND YOU DON’T WANT TO EVEN DISCUSS THE REALITIES OR THE POSSIBILITIES which is why I often end my pieces designed for generating thought with:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Parkland School Shooting: Everybody Failed

Is it success to fail? Is it a failure to succeed? My government failed, and I’m a winner? My government failed, therefore, I have failed? Regardless of your perspective, it appears that both sides in a ridiculous and phony debate about a mass shooting at a Florida high school are saying that there was “failure” everywhere, committed by numerous people and groups of people. There’s lots of blame to dish out.

To some, the NRA failed society because they are to blame for the presence of guns in our society. To others, the government “system” sworn to be our protectors, failed at all levels. The school system failed. Law enforcement failed. The Media failed. Oh, hell, I’ll say it because it has already been said before – stopping global warming failed.

If we are going to dole out failure certificates – because in today’s society everyone gets one – make sure everyone gets one.

Where did the failure begin? I suppose a sensible argument could be made that the first failure of man was when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. But, let’s move the calendar up about 6,000 years – time and place, the United States of America around about 1787. For those unable to make the leap, this was the year of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was signed in 1789 to become effective in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was actually the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There have been 17 more. Article V of the Constitution tells us how to offer amendments:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Our governmental failures began with the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Short of an all-out debate about the Constitution, try to understand the realities of what the government does in its regard. For some, this may be a difficult concept, but the governmental failure is due to it being a rigged system, designed as such. A government unchecked with the ability to write its own ticket is tyranny at work.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, so many of us take the amendment as it is written and demand that it be followed to the letter of each text. We do this with all our “rights” without considering the rest of the Constitution. A rigged system will not allow the original intent and wording of any amendment…unless of course, it is the interest of the Government over that of the people. In addition, this tyrannical government hasn’t reached the point yet where they are brazen enough to just totally disregard the Second Amendment (and all other amendments) and essentially declare a suspension of the Constitution for reasons of “rebellion and public safety.” (U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 – this is one rigging.)

Article I, Section 8, in part reads:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This is another part of the rigged system. Over time the Congress of the United States has assumed all power over regulation and the enforcement of such regulations whether or not you or I think their actions violate the Constitution. There’s always the catch-all phrase or phrases, like the Commerce Clause.

If we refer back to the Second Amendment, have the people or the Legislature (the People) legally amendment the text of the Second Amendment according to Article V of the Constitution? I’ve not seen that happen. However, have they succeeded (or failed depending upon one’s perspective) in amending the wording and meaning of the Second Amendment – and other amendments? You bet they have and there is no stopping the tyrannical power grab because our own failures have allowed it to happen. Manufactured laws and established precedent effectively change the original Bill of Rights.

“Reasonable” restrictions on any amendment of our Bill of Rights is illegal in the sense that it effectively changes the wording and meaning/interpretation of that law. But, that doesn’t matter, does it? Has Congress overstepped its authority to “make all laws that shall be necessary and proper” and such believe themselves to hold the power to disregard the part of the Constitution that lays out the steps needed to amend an amendment? Evidently we, the little people, don’t seem to think so.

For those who despise the Second Amendment, I got news for you. This same tactic takes place when “necessary and proper” for the destruction of all of our rights. As has often been stated, whenever the Government has full control over our rights they are no longer rights but privileges. Privileges can be given and privileges can be just as easily taken away. Perhaps it is time to rename the Bill of Rights to the Bill of Privileges.

Our own failures have provided the path for an easily rigged system in which the Government can do anything and everything they want regardless of what you want to believe. Our failures have allowed the growth of this Government so large that it is impossible for it to function at any level. It can only succeed at failure.

Failure is everywhere and it’s not just the Government and it’s not just society. James Madison, contributing author of the U.S. Constitution and often titled the Father of the Bill of Rights, once said: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” What he was saying here is that it is but a pipe dream to think that any government can deliver liberty and happiness without first securing the morality of the people. That securing of morality has long since vanished I’m afraid.

Because our society is void of honest morality, to think that we can work with and within a corrupt and rigged institution to lock up our safety, freedoms, and happiness is but a chimerical idea. In fact, it is the culmination of many generations of failures.

Parkland, Florida is just the latest in a long list of failures. We debate the nonsensical portions of our societal failures, blaming everyone but ourselves. The overwhelming presence of insanity clearly suggests something must change.

 

 

 

Share

Maine Governor Says 3 Ballot Questions are “Unconstitutional”

According the Maine Wire, in an article written by Governor Paul LePage, he states: “As Governor, I am sworn to uphold the Constitutions of Maine and the United States of America. I take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my suit pocket every day.

In Maine, I believe three of the questions on the November ballot are unconstitutional. If they pass it will be impossible to uphold my oath of office.”<<<Read More>>>

To claim something to be “unconstitutional,” isn’t it a bit of an over-used excuse? One might even argue it a cliche. I am no constitutional scholar, and even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn once, I can’t say that qualifies me to be an expert. I am, however, perhaps a bit more versed in constitutional history than your average Joe – no offense intended to Joes everywhere.

I would assume that to declare that a law or proposed law to be “unconstitutional” it must be directly in opposition to the constitution of the state being referenced – in this case Maine, or the Federal Government. The author also says that he believes some of the ballot questions, if passed, would violate the U.S. Constitution as well. Would it?

First, a fundamental error often made by lay people, like myself, is lack of understanding between what might be considered “unconstitutional” and what could be “without precedence.”

In the case of the Maine Governor’s claim of the unconstitutionality of three ballot questions, I suppose we must take a look at the Maine Constitution first. Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, in part reads: “The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.” Reads like a lawyer’s dream come true doesn’t it?

In this day and age of immorality, where wrong is now right, where bad is good, the end justifies the means, etc. what and who determines what is “reasonable” and “not repugnant?” Surely you understand that the Maine Constitution gives the Legislature the power and authority to “make and establish” any and all laws they deem in the best interest of the Maine (P)?people.

But such a delegation of power is not just found in the Maine Constitution. The U.S. Constitution states the same. In Article I, Section 8, we read: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Read that one a few times.

Is it not appropriate to question whether such constitutional statements give the Congress of the United States, and in this case, the state of Maine, authority to create and establish any law(s) they deem within the “reasonable,” “necessary,” and “proper” within the limiting (or not limiting) terms of the sections of the constitution?

If, in Maine, Question 3 is in violation of the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 16, “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”, then perhaps the petition for citizen referral process is faulty by allowing “unconstitutional” proposals to find their way to a public vote. Cannot the Maine Legislature, upon acknowledgement that Question 3 violates Article I, Section 16, veto the law should it pass? Or does Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, of the Maine Constitution and U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, have legislative power over any and all other laws if deemed necessary by a partisan legislature?

But constitutional proclamations are not the only law of the land. Precedence and Policy, especially in this day and age of corrupt politics, certainly disregards any constitutional guidelines or regulations. We regularly are witness to the establishment of “Policy” with each successive administration voted into office.

Many of us recall when Speaker of the U.S. House was asked if the newly passed “Obamacare” was constitutional, her reply was “you’re kidding right?” Not that I think Nancy Pelosi is actually intelligent enough to understand what she was saying beyond her own ignorance, can there really be any questioning a passage of a law, that many of us do think is “unconstitutional” when the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government can operate under Article I, Section 8. With such authority, Congress can enact any law they well please, with perhaps some push back from the people to deal with. This push back only matters when it vote gathering time.

If there is any hope of fighting against those proposed laws, it is through the battle against Precedence and Policy and the creation of your own precedence and policy, if there is such a thing.

In Maine’s case, and the argument offered by the governor, it is my opinion that, via the referendum process, for what it’s worth, Question 3 goes beyond whether it’s constitutional or not and as such presents a poor argument against the proposal. While in this country Precedence and Policy have altered the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and in this case the State of Maine’s Right to Bear Arms, argument should be made about, not only the absolute destruction of an inalienable right, but that in Maine, there is no precedence or policy that dismantles the “never shall be questioned” aspect of Article I, Section 16. In addition, it should be vehemently pointed out that in the most recent Second Amendment voting in Maine, voters opted to begin tearing down the obstacles that destroy the liberty of self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, by passing a, so-called, Constitutional Carry law, in which Maine people, a plurality, wanted to be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to subject themselves to the strong arm of the Federal and State governments.

Now that’s precedence! Unconstitutional is a dead argument.

 

 

Share

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

The U.S. Has at Least 3.5 Million Gun Laws!

GunControlI hope I got your attention with that headline, and better yet, I hope none of you have cut and run assuming I’m an idiot…although I’ll concede that many of you cut and run quite some time ago.

The Second Amendment was part of the original Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” From time immemorial, the intent of the Second Amendment has always been debated. Was this right granted to the “militia” or to the individual U.S. citizen…or someone else? Some seem to think that question was finally answered, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller. The late SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Majority Opinion and wrote: “It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms…” However, while many in this country was celebrating this statement by Scalia, they chose to ignore, “Of course the right was not unlimited…” In reading Scalia’s opinion, he bases his claim that the Second Amendment can and should have limitations on a presumption that the Founding Fathers, when ratifying the Bill of Rights, knew that in subsequent generations, obviously unforeseen in 1791 upon ratification, certain “things” would call for changes or limitations to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. My question to Justice Scalia then would have been, if the Founding Fathers were smart enough, with enough foresight to imagine the need for “reasonable limitations” of all the rights, then why didn’t the Founding Fathers write that in the Bill of Rights?

Even though there is little in the Second Amendment text that would cause people to conclude that it has room for “limitations” into the future, how does one responsibly argue against, “shall not be infringed” and Scalia’s claim that the Fathers knew?

I’m not intending to get sidetracked, but this is important information to have and to research and study, if you are really seeking Truth.

If one is to fairly examine rights, as they were written in the Bill of Rights, it is important to take note of the efforts, since 1791, to limit the exercise of each of the original 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For lack of time and space, I will not venture into all the rights, except to use the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech right, as a comparison.

If we look at a timeline of the history of freedom of speech, in which certain laws were enacted or attempted to be enacted and failed, we see that about the only limitations in free speech we still experience today deal with obscenity. Obviously that is pretty much overlooked as such “indecent” material is readily available at just about anywhere in the United States. Even consider that at one time the U.S. banned the desecration of the American Flag, only later to have that prohibition overturned. Even though many of us Americans stand up to protect our Bill of Rights, too many of us are guilty of cherry-picking when and where to apply such rights. Perhaps the current debate in progress over whether a professional football player should be punished because he refused to stand during a pregame National Anthem, in protest…peaceably.

In total, there are perhaps a small handful of laws that limit freedom of speech, even though Justice Scalia believed that future generations would find the need for “reasonable limitations” on all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Turning to the Second Amendment, I headlined this piece as there being 3.5 million limitations to the Second Amendment. How absurd is that? Well, I really don’t know how absurd that number is but I can assure you the number of laws, all aimed at limiting our Second Amendment, is substantially larger than a small handful.

On June 18, 1981, President Ronald Reagan, after having supposedly been shot by John Hinckley, Jr. said, “There are, today, more than 20,000 gun-control laws in effect–federal, state and local–in the United States.”

The Media and all political factions, political action organizations, groups, non-profits, etc. are guilty of taking anything they find in writing and becoming an echo chamber to perpetuate it as fact. It is readily assumed that the choice to state 20,000 gun control laws existed, wasn’t and probably still isn’t the truth. But what is? Is it more than 20,000 or less than 20,000?

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, while testifying before Congress in January of 2013, told Congress, “The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.” So, was Reagan referring to all gun laws, i.e. federal, state and local? Did LaPierre have knowledge of how many federal laws limit the Second Amendment? Later, a spokesperson for the NRA said LaPierre misspoke, but would never give a source or correct the number.

What are we to think? The Bangor Daily News reports that, “the ATF guide to state laws… is 507 pages long and includes only laws relevant to dealers.” Maybe there are 3.5 million laws limiting a person from freely exercising their guaranteed Second Amendment Right.

We can safely conclude no less that 2 things – There are a lot of gun laws and very few of them are or can be enforced.

If we return to the First Amendment limitations for just a moment, and examine the limitations, even those that were either overturned or expired, can we make a reasonable conclusion as to the reason for the limitations? I think so. Isn’t it about public safety or protecting the public interest, even though some, if not all, laws are political in nature?

What about the Second Amendment? Can there be any other reason to want to limit the Second Amendment than for public safety? Forget the politics for a moment. Everything in life is full of political insanity. The Second Amendment is under attack most vehemently today because of political insanity. Some of that insanity is hidden behind calls for necessary and reasonable limitations on gun ownership because of public safety. After all, it is with every occurrence of a shooting that some in the public, as they are programmed to do, call for more limitations, more laws, more restrictions, all to protect the public. But to protect them from what? It seems the political posturing is of more harm to the public than an armed, unrestricted citizenry would be.

If reasonable people, of which there are few, could conclude that the majority, if not every single gun control law, was proposed and/or enacted, based upon public safety, then the question that remains is quite simple. How has the 100, 1,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 3.5 million Second Amendment limitation laws worked out in protecting the public and ensuring public safety? I thought so.

It’s next to impossible to attempt to provide a rational list of data that shows gun crime as it relates to increased gun restrictions, mostly because the criteria changes or is changed to rig the data. A reasonable person, only needing to look around, should be able to see that with 3.5 million gun laws on the books, those laws can’t be doing much for public safety. Maybe it’s time to try something else.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Bill Whittle: Is Hillary Guilty?

Some of what Whittle says is true. The problem is, most people haven’t a clue as to what parts of what he says are true and what are false. Some of the truth he speaks is hidden behind the manner in which he speaks, continuing to direct the people to believe things that are not true by using bits of truth. This the result of ignorance and complacency.

Hillary broke the laws in which the rest of us are expected to obey. She, and the rest in Washington, don’t have to obey those laws, unless, of course, it becomes a convenient way to rid someone not willing to play the game. Some get assassinated.

Share

CONSTRUED: Interpret in a Particular Way

HUH?

SamAdams

Share

Coffee, Tea, or Me?

YearsAgo

Share