Posts

The Epic Gun Control Testimony You’ve Been Waiting For: ‘The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety, It Guaranteed Liberty’

Photo Credit: YouTube

How do Connecticut residents feel about the crackdown on the Second Amendment? Well, there are people from both sides making passionate arguments on the issue, however, one gentleman last week was able to make a particularly persuasive case against more gun control and in favor of the U.S. Constitution.

Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”

“This is the third day I’ve taken off of work to come here to, like so many of the rest of us, to plead with you for us to keep our guns because of some wing-nut in Newtown, Connecticut,” he said. “If that isn’t inherently wrong, I don’t know what is. That these bills are even in proposed form is scary enough. That any of you could possibly be undecided is scary enough. What are you looking at?”

He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”

Connecticut will be the next state set to tackle new gun control measures is Connecticut, the same state where the tragic Newtown massacre occurred. On Tuesday, a key committee of the state’s General Assembly unanimously approved expanding criminal background checks. On Wednesday, lawmakers were set to discuss expanding the state’s current ban on so-called “assault weapons” to include even more firearms as well as additional magazine limits and universal background checks.

Watch video here:

Read more from this story HERE.

Texas Legislation Signals that Texas Nationalist Movement is Becoming a Political Force

Photo Credit: The Vindicator

A bill filed by a state legislator to reaffirm Texas’ intent to defend its state sovereignty raises for the first time the potential of defending that sovereignty by leaving the Union.

On March 7, State Representative James White (R-Woodville) filed House Concurrent Resolution 77. The resolution effectively spells out a defense of state sovereignty under both the U.S. and Texas constitutions and echoes almost word-for-word the resolution that members of the Texas Nationalist Movement have been lobbying for introduction since January.

“The question was recently asked by the mass media if the Texas Nationalist Movement is becoming a political force,” Texas Nationalist Movement president Daniel Miller said in a message e-mailed to group members. “Members of the Texas Nationalist Movement and the general public will recognize the text of this legislation as a virtual duplicate of the legislation proposed by the TNM to the 82nd Legislature and hand delivered to members of the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas Senate and the Lieutenant Governor on the opening day of the 83rd session of the Legislature.”

Miller said the group had wanted a call for a non-binding referendum on independence and was “disappointed” that language calling for such a vote was not included in the measure introduced by White, but TNM is fully supportive of the resolution nonetheless.

“While we in the Texas Nationalist Movement are disappointed that the legislators have declined at this time to give the people of Texas a measurable voice on the issue of independence in accordance with Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, we are pleased that this legislation was filed,” he said. Miller said the language introduced by White is important in that it serves as a platform for further movement toward independence.

Read more from this story HERE.

Palin To Conservatives: Influence, Culture, Sports; Cling To God, Guns, Constitution

Photo Credit: Breitbart

At a leadership forum at Southeastern University in Lakeland Florida on Friday, Sarah Palin told conservatives to influence the culture by impacting sports and continue to cling to God, guns, and the Constitution.

Sports has often always been upstream from culture and, as Andrew Breitbart always said, culture has been upstream from politics.
According to NewsChief.com, Palin encouraged conservatives to “infiltrate” the culture and study journalism while going into Hollywood and the sports world.

“Get out there and influence culture,” she said. “The future of the country depends on what you do.” She also asked the next generation to help change the country’s moral fiber because “our foundation will crumble if we choose to ignore it,”

“Cling to your God, your guns, your Constitution!” Palin said. “God deserves so much better than what we give him … What has happened when we can’t say his name in public?”

She hammered the crony capitalism in Washington D.C., referring to Washington as a “hotbed of cronyism” and calling the federal government “bloated, corrupt, and out-of-control.” Palin injected “crony capitalism” into the political bloodstream with her speech in Indianola, Iowa in 2011 and at her maiden appearance at CPAC in 2012.

Read more from this story HERE.

RebRANDing: New GOP Emerges

Photo Credit: Breitbart On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) served notice to both the Republican establishment and to the Democrat-Media Complex: conservatism isn’t gone. It’s not even on vacation. The new wave of conservatives is here, and they know how to play the game.

At approximately 11:47 a.m. EST, Paul took to the floor of the Senate to filibuster the nomination of counterterrorism czar John Brennan for CIA Director. Paul stated his reason specifically and clearly: the Obama administration has refused to answer question as to whether they believe it is acceptable under the Constitution to kill American citizens on US soil using drones if those citizens are not engaged in an immediate terrorist threat. Paul was broader than that, actually – he simply asked the administration for a set of rules that could be used to limit their power to execute American citizens here at home. Over and over again, the administration refused to turn over the legal memos detailing its policies.

And so Paul talked. And boy, did he talk. For nearly 13 hours, he talked, taking breaks only when spelled by Senators including fellow Tea Partiers Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Even an honest Democrat – apparently the only one in the chamber – got into the act: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). Citing everyone from left to right, Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of an administration ripping into waterboarding of terrorists but happy to target them for death from the skies. He asked repeatedly why the administration could not answer his simple question about the boundaries of government power. And the American people listened.

It was an astonishing demonstration of the power of ideas. Paul spoke directly to the American people from the floor of the Senate. No media interrogators. No Obama functionaries. No spin machine. He was not strident, but he was firm. “No American should ever be killed in their house without warrant and some kind of aggressive behavior by them,” said Paul. “To be bombed in your sleep? There’s nothing American about that … [President Obama] says trust him because he hasn’t done it yet. He says he doesn’t intend to do so, but he might. Mr. President, that’s not good enough … so I’ve come here to speak for as long as I can to draw attention to something that I find to really be very disturbing …

“I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution …. The point isn’t that anyone in our country is Hitler. But what I am saying is that in a democracy you could somehow elect someone who is very evil … When a democracy gets it wrong, you want the law to be in place.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Special Thirst for Control (+audio)

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight against Obamacare in federal court, and he says he is bringing the same fidelity to the Constitution in his bid to become the next governor of the Commonwealth.

Cuccinelli is also author of the new book “The Last Line of Defense: The New Fight for American Liberty. He told WND a presidential administration striving for more power is typical in both parties, but he believes the Obama team has a special thirst for control.

“What makes this unique, frankly, is the brazenness and frequency of this administration’s willingness to break the law and to trample the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said. “Just last month they lost the constitutional case that came straight from the president about his supposed recess appointments. He claimed the right to essentially declare when the Senate was in recess, which is an egregious violation of the separation of powers, and the court found so unanimously and they threw out his appointment.”

Cuccinelli said his own state is also the victim of federal overreach, a claim that was also validated in a recent federal court ruling involving the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.

“We beat the EPA in Virginia, which I refer to as the Employment Prevention Agency because they’re so good at that, with Fairfax County as our co-plaintiff,” Cuiccinelli said. “It is a very partisan, Democrat board of supervisors, and yet they joined me as the co-plaintiff in that suit because they knew that the federal government had broken the law in how it was attempting to regulate water just like it would regulate a pollutant. It sounds crazy and it is, which is probably part of why we won so convincingly. That was worth over $300 million to the people of Virginia.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Missouri House Bill Makes Proposing Gun Control Illegal

Photo Credit: CBS St. Louis A Missouri lawmaker is proposing to send colleagues to prison for introducing gun control legislation — a plan that even its sponsor acknowledges has no chance of passage but nonetheless highlights the increasingly strident tone of gun measures in Missouri’s generally pro-gun Legislature.

Rep. Mike Leara said Tuesday that he considers his bill a statement of principle. It would make lawmakers guilty of a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if they introduce legislation restricting gun rights.

“I have no illusions about the bill making it through the legislative process, but I want it to be clear that the Missouri House will stand in defense of the people’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Leara, a Republican from suburban St. Louis, said in a written statement. He declined further comment.

Read more from this story HERE.

Alaska Talks Liberty

Russ Millette will host Bob Bird on Alaska Talks Liberty this Tuesday Feb 12th at 3 PM AST, 6 PM CST, 7 PM EST.

Bob is a Constitutional Scholar and expert on Constitutional Law and will be talking about Nullification and the 2nd Amendment.

Please go to www.russmillette.com Tues at 3 PM AST and tune in.

Video: CBS Runs Segment Called ‘Let’s Give Up On The Constitution’

From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

See video:

Read more from this story HERE.

Mark Levin Calls Out Obama’s UnConstitutional ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Says President’s ‘Arrogant as Hell’

In this must-see video, Mark Levin rails against Obama:

I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election. It’s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president.

So when he gets up there and starts saying, ‘If Congress doesn’t do this I’m going to do this unilaterally,’ it violates separation of powers a lot of the time.

And this a man who’s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral on immigration, whether it’s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.

Property, Rule of Law & Freedom

photo credit: ‘caveman chuck’ coker

While in the midst of a wholesale reevaluation of the right to private property, it is timely to reexamine the history of US property rights. What exactly caused America’s unparallelled level of prosperity and freedom? Certainly our economic success then created unparallelled global influence and military might. But what factors allowed America’s stunning growth in economic power in such a short period of time? This economic success was driven by a firm Rule of Law regime which supported the Constitution’s unique defense of private property.

What is the relationship between property, Rule of Law and prosperity? In a nutshell, history shows that unless private property is protected by a firm, unyielding and unbiased Rule of Law, markets will not flourish. Therefore, wealth will not grow and all the other things associated with a prosperous society will also fall by the wayside. The reasons for this are ultimately based in human nature. People are not automatons who simply go about doing “what we are supposed to do.” Instead, human motivation and productivity are very much tied into the rewards and risks found in any undertaking. Yet, if the government takes away the rewards of ambition, leaving behind only the risks, then productivity will fall precipitously.

It is one of the hallmarks of Marxist-influenced thinking to insist human nature does not exist. This single presumption has caused more chaos than probably any other leftist idea. It’s a direct result of assuming God is a fiction, ie religion as the Opiate of the Masses. But, if there is no God, then mankind cannot be made in His likeness—Imago Dei. Further, if humans evolved from a random series of directionless events, and there is no inherent core in people, then anything goes and nothing is out of bounds for ethics, morality, or any other human undertaking. Or, as Dostoevsky believed—Without God, everything is possible. So, the presumption mankind is just a soulless, material being is the single most destructive element in the progressive worldview, and the root cause of all subsequent economic failure.

I. History & Importance of Rule of Law

The Rule of Law as a concept is tied historically to such thinkers as Aristotle, and legal developments such as the Ten Commandments, a foundational legal code. The American Constitution is a concrete example of Rule of Law theorizing, creating a bedrock set of precepts. As a concept, the Rule of Law is a necessary addendum to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. It was Scottish divine and university professor Samuel Rutherford who most eloquently described the concept of the Rule of Law in his Lex Rex, or The Law is King. This work influenced the Founders, as well as philosopher John Locke’s writings on constitutionalism and property rights. Locke’s contribution to a Rule of Law republic can be seen in his chapter Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government :

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.”

Read more from this article HERE.