The Leftist Assault on American Football … Douglas V. Gibbs

The Leftist Assault on American Football

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

I love football.  I watched Peyton Manning lead Denver over New England (I was surprised Tom Brady didn’t pull it off, to be honest), and enjoyed the NFC Championship Game, where the Seattle Seahawks finished off San Francisco.  I had a few phone calls while watching those games, too.  Two of the callers asked me about television shows and movies, and the political messages intertwined in them.  I told them, “Of course.  The leftists never rest, and they use every tool available to them to silence, and destroy, their opposition.  Nothing is sacred.  Everything is political.”

 

Everything is political.

 

The battle is the same, no matter the name.

 

Talking heads battle over the virtue of one, or the other.  Political parties claim theirs is the ideology that will best serve the nation.  Motivational speakers ask individuals to look inward, psychiatrists ask us to dig deep inward, and progressives tell us to abandon what is inward.  Voices that claim to be conventional wisdom preach that we must do what is best for the common good, while other voices proclaim that it is best to be self-sufficient, and to take care of one’s own interests.  Either we must accomplish goals in our lives, or we must be raised by a village.  Either we must compete, or we must be dependents.

 

Swirling opinions circle our heads to the point that we don’t want to talk about religion and politics.  The discussions are too divisive, we utter.  Can’t we just come together as a single race of beings?  Then, we go to the game, to compete, to cheer, and to talk smack against the other side.

 

Which is more important?  Community?  Or our individual selves?  Should we be a collective society?  Or should we be a society of self-reliant individuals?

 

Individualism creates strong communities, but collectivism destroys individualism.  Individuals compete, and work hard to prosper.  Collectivism downplays competition, proclaiming equity, and allegiance to the ruling elite.  Individualism cries out for freedom, be it the freedom to succeed, or the freedom to fail.  Collectivism calls for peace and safety, which begins with the ruling class attempting to protect you even from yourself.

 

Competition, therefore, stands in the way of a society seeking progressive paths to utopia.  Therefore, competition cannot be tolerated.

 

In Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome, sporting events were an important part of the culture.  Olympians and Gladiators performed for the masses, distracting them from the truth, diverting their attention from the crumbling pillars and domes of the once great societies.  Or was it the opposite?  Were those sporting events actually examples of the individuality that reigned in society?  Were they not examples of the competitive nature of the civilization the ordinary citizens battled in?  What happened to the nature of competition as the empires fell, and the statists gained control of the governmental systems?

 

Sporting events became training grounds.  Children participated in sporting events not only to compete, and be healthy, but because these events served as military training. Ball games, and equestrian events, were common. Many sporting events grew into major entertainments that became both spectacular and bloody.

 

The fall of the Roman Empire less than 500 years after the birth of Christ led the western civilized world into a thousand year darkness of chaos and barbarity, according to historians.  The time period is called “The Dark Ages,” and during this era of disorganization, and lack of prosperity, physical activity, sport, and fitness diminished.

 

Viewing history, then, the presence of sporting events normally accompany the prosperity of society.  The more prosperous the civilization, the more sporting it becomes.

 

Everything is political.

 

According to some political thinkers, prosperity emerges when individuals have the freedom to dream, innovate, and seek their own success.  Less government regulation, and the presence of a free market, enables competition among the individuals seeking to better themselves through a business enterprise.  The success of these endeavors, then, enables an increase of products and services in the market for consumers, while creating employment as the operation grows.

 

The political thinkers that oppose the free market, and the individualistic point of view, contend that individualism hinders social solidarity and community. The individual cannot become a full adult and a capable person in any sense without becoming also by the same movement social and solid with his fellows.

 

But how can one become a beneficial part of the community if he does not strive for personal rewards?  How can an individual learn how to exist in, and improve, his community if he hasn’t struggled and competed against rivals?

 

To serve oneself is to serve the community, but to serve the community one denies himself.

 

The argument should not be an absolute, where you are either an individual, or a collectivist.  The argument should be, “which one best serves both?”

 

To put the community above the individual is to deny individuality, but to put the individual above community is to populate the community with successful individuals, which in the long run, benefits the community.

 

The greater the challenge, the greater the effort, and the greater the accomplishments of the individual.

 

So why, in God’s Name, would anybody wish to quell individual accomplishment, and competition?

 

Which brings us to American professional football.

 

Progressives place the community, and government, above individuals, individual accomplishment, and above individual competition.  Theirs is a world of social engineering, where only the political ruling elite understands what is best for society.  If their decisions, and their beliefs, are above all else, then why would they tolerate anything that says otherwise?

 

Sports is completely antithetical to what the leftists are trying to achieve.  Sports allows the individual to be the best he can be, while competing against other individuals.  However, as in the free market, when the individual excels, it is good for the community, be it the team, or the league.  The team prospers by winning, bringing in more fans, and selling more product.  The league wins by cashing in on popular games, and selling more product.  All because of some talented individuals, competing to be the best.

 

On the surface, many progressives may even love sports, themselves.  But deep down, sports represents the opposite of what the leftists stand for.  It dares to scream in the face of their political ideology, and reveal the truth about individualism.  However, the Left cannot just come out and ban sports.  They cannot come out and say that you little peasant folk aren’t allowed to participate in competition, anymore.  That would reveal who they are, and what their true face is.  As with everything else they do, the American liberal left must use the back door, and convince the people to agree with them through a series of attacks against the item in question.

 

Enter, stage left, the sudden interest in concussions caused by playing football.  Writers, commentators and politicians have decided that the risk is too much to take.  Studies are being done about head injuries, and the long-term health effects, caused by a lifetime of playing football.

 

My first thought is, “Yeah, fine, but the players are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into.”

 

The concept of liberty includes the freedom to take risks, undertake dangerous activities, and even do stupid things if you are dumb enough to do them.

 

As always, the Left’s main tool in this attempt to punch football in the eye is through the courts.  Lawsuits are emerging.  A current lawsuit pits former National Football League players against the league for health issues that are, they claim, a result of trauma received during their careers. They assert that they were not aware of the risks involved when they played.

 

The assault is achieving the desired result.  The NFL has put into place new rules to make the sport safer.  Tackling is virtually gone in training camps.  Players are afraid to hit above the mid-torso, because if they get too close to the head, it’s a huge penalty.

 

Progressives are jumping on board, working to pacify the game, and change football into a safe and humane sport.

 

President Barack Obama said, “I would not let my son play pro-football.”

 

In New York, Assemblyman Michael Benedetto said he will introduce legislation to ban tackle football for children at under age 14, as well as disallowing “heading” in soccer.

 

In Illinois, the governor has signed into law a requirement for programs to insure student-athletes.  This will decimate smaller sports programs, and will probably kill a number of the larger programs, as well.

 

We must keep our children safe, we are being told.  Don’t let them be individuals, and don’t let them play, unless their play is a government approved activity, of course.

 

And we thought they spent a lot of time on their smart-phones, as it is.

 

“That’s okay,” the leftists are probably figuring.  “The kids won’t be as fit, they won’t be as nimble, and they won’t be as agile.  Who are we?  Rome?  Let’s not let the children be trained to be good soldiers. . . or individuals.”

 

The violence of sports, especially football, as far as the Left is concerned, must be taken away.  We must spare our children from such barbarity . . . and teach them to serve the government through liberal education, instead.

 

What’s next?  If kids start playing football in the street will they be candidates for the school psychologist?  If the counseling doesn’t work, maybe the Ritalin will.

 

First dodgeball (and God help us if they ever try to call it “Smear the Queer,” like we did when we were kids), and now football.  Pretty soon, if the liberal left has its way, the kids will be playing with sticks and hoops without any competition whatsoever allowed, like the Amish…but minus the religion part.

 

We don’t want our kids being aggressive, you know.  It might offend somebody.

 

Muslim suicide bombers will be exempt, I am sure.

 

Dumb them down, pacify their activities, and teach them to obey the government.  Sports teaches individual accomplishment way too much for the taste of the liberal left.  The village says no more football, so that is the next goal.

 

Except, freedom always finds a way.  Individuality always finds a way to emerge, and spread its wings.

 

They may push us down for a season, but in the end, the human spirit of liberty always finds a way.

 

As the NFL does more and more to appease the forces against the league, passing new rules to keep the players safe, a new league will emerge.  Perhaps the Arena League, or maybe something like the XFL league that Pro Wrestling Mogul Vince McMahon tried to start.  Believe me, an alternative to return the game to its true self, will emerge.  The NFL may eventually sell out, but that does not mean the end of football, contact sports, or individuality.

 

“The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army.  They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.”  — Thomas Jefferson

 

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

 

Obama: ‘I would not let my son play pro football’ – The Hill

 

Limbaugh asks, Will Liberal Media Try to Ban Football? – NewsBusters

 

Destroying Football: The Left’s Endgame – American Thinker

 

New Rule at NFL Camps: No Tackling. Just Practice – New York Times

 

NY Democrat Seeks to Ban Youth Tackle Football, Kids from “Heading” the ball in Soccer – Weasel Zippers

The Essence of Liberty … Douglas V. Gibbs

The Essence of Liberty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

The convergence of political philosophies in our modern world has blurred the lines between them.  Language has been altered to confuse the terms, and conceal the true nature of authoritarian concepts.  The unique inherent complexion of the different philosophies have been lost, and it is in studying, and understanding, these various political principles that the path to an informed opinion regarding the various political philosophies emerges.

 

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the distinction between communism, and our free society, was clear.  The West enjoyed freedom, based on a representative system largely influenced by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.  The English-speaking world enjoyed prosperity, and the nations that were not under tyrannical rule found themselves emulating the American system of governance as best as they could.  However, within the Free World, there were not only many versions of free societies, but dangerous deviations within those systems that mirrored more the authoritarian governments of Europe at the time of the forging of America, than of the system of limiting principles articulated by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

 

A lack of understanding was the primary culprit.  Freedom is not just a coined term, or something that you achieve if you wish for it real hard.  With freedom comes responsibility, in both the creation of a system that protects it, and the maintenance of such a system once it comes into being.  Liberty requires diligent care applied by an informed populace.

 

Strong government has been the unfortunate norm in history.  Once government begins to grow, it expands continuously, only halting if forced to do so.  As a government increases in size, and expands its intrusion into the lives of the citizens, individual freedom decreases, and eventually liberty becomes nothing more than a distant desire that seems too far off in the distance to ever be reached.  Tyranny provides a stark reminder that in order for a society to be free, the government must be limited in its scope, and powers.

 

James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the United States Constitution, recognized the dangers of government.  A central government always eventually becomes a tyranny, but without government, there is no freedom, either.  In an anarchy, as the chaos reaches a crescendo, the people cry out for order, and a powerful few are always happy to grab the reins.  Those powerful few always end up ruling in a totalitarian manner, reminding us that no government provides no freedom, and is nothing more than a transition to tyranny.

 

Regarding the dangers, and the necessity, of having a government, James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

 

The rule of law, as revealed with the writing of the Magna Carta over five hundred years before, works best when in a written form.  A contract was needed.  If the law is merely passed by word of mouth, it changes, and can be manipulated.  Unwritten law evolves, living and breathing with the whims of society, until the law itself becomes a motto point, and a tyranny takes control, and rules with their own version of the law.  Altering the law by those seeking tyrannical power is less likely if the law is in a written constitution.  This does not mean that tyranny will not try to change the rule of law into the rule of man, but the likelihood of success by these tyrants would remain small.  The law being in writing, however, is not enough.  To protect the system the people also need to be informed, and vigilant.

 

The essence of freedom is the reality of a limited government.  As long as the citizens understand this, the danger of an ever-expanding government can be kept in check.

 

When those seeking power are able to convince the people that the electorate can vote gifts to themselves from the treasury, and when the politicians offer gifts from the treasury to gain the vote of the people, the limitations on government are no longer an obstacle, and the constitutional vision of the founders is in jeopardy.

 

As freedom erodes, the community becomes more important than the individual.  The rulers proclaim that their executive actions are for the common good, to protect the community from the greed and excesses of selfish individuals, and it is their aim to make everything fair and equitable.  Individual rights lose ground to special interests, and civil society is weakened as all aspects of life become politicized.  Groups are identified, and dissenters are targeted.  Polarization is released to run amok, and government uses the crises to foment division, and to become more powerful.

 

James Madison recognized that government attracts those with a lust for power, and that the essence of government itself is power.  He said, “The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

 

After forming a weak government under the Articles of Confederation, the fledgling United States needed a powerful lion to protect, preserve, and promote the union of sovereign states.  The new federal government needed to be powerful when handling the external issues, while absent, or nothing more than a mediator, when it came to local issues.  The problem with lions, however, is that they have a tendency to want to eat you.  So how could the founders create a lion that could be unleashed against enemies of the union of states, yet restrained when it came to the internal issues of the new country?  To keep the lion restrained, it would need to be caged, or chained.  These limitations were the essence of the principles that went into the writing of the United States Constitution.  It was a way to reduce as much as possible the potential abuse of governmental power, while protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

 

Thomas Jefferson, though not present at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, recognized the brilliance of the document. He first viewed it while in France, and sent back to the states his resounding approval. Later, he said of the limiting principles in the Constitution, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

 

The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create a structure of government that would protect individuality, natural rights, and property, while also standing the test of time.  The demise of civilizations, historically, were the result of tyranny, so to protect the free society in the United States into the future, the government must be limited, and it must be maintained by an informed people.

 

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

The Constitution, however, was only one piece of the puzzle.  Without an informed people to defend it, the Constitution is nothing more than ink and paper.  James Madison wisely observed, “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

 

Without being educated regarding American exceptionalism, and the principles of the Constitution, the American People would surely lead themselves, one day in the future, to bondage.  Without being informed, the people would not even be able to recognize tyranny.  They would mistake it for freedom, and believe the manipulated language presented to them.  We The People would surely, if not properly educated about the principles of limited government, fall for the idea that government can provide utopia. . . if only you are willing to give up your freedom.

 

George Washington recognized the necessity for the citizenry to be properly educated, and went even further by articulating that we must educate the younger generation regarding the principles of freedom, limited government, and our constitution.  He said, “A primary object. . . should be the education of our youth in the science of government.  In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important?  And what duty more pressing. . . than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

 

Thomas Jefferson believed that often the people would be led astray.  He believed it was possible that to alter or abolish a tyrannical system, we may need to fight a bloody revolution every twenty years!  Jefferson also recognized that in the end, with liberty implanted in them as an inheritance, even if led astray, the people would find their way.  He said, “The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army.  They may be led astray, for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.”

 

Correcting ourselves is our God-given right.  As a friend once told me, “Nobody deserves tyranny.”

 

In the Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph, our duty, and right, to take action in the face of tyranny, is clear.  The first paragraph sets up that right, rightfully stating that it sometimes becomes necessary to take action against a tyrannical government.  The Declaration reads, “. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form.”

 

Government is necessary.  Madison regarded it as self-evident “that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.”

 

Divine Providence was the centerpiece of the view of the founders.  Through Divine Providence, the English Colonies defeated the most powerful military force in the world, and through Divine Providence, the greatest constitution in history was written after about four months of grueling debate.  Benjamin Franklin, likely the least religious of the delegates, recognized God’s Hand in the forging of this nation, and was not afraid to voice his opinion on the matter after the first few weeks of debate during the federal convention of 1787 was yielding little by way of results.

 

The new nation needed solutions, and the men present were arguing over matters that would not matter if the country collapsed. The elder statesman, Benjamin Franklin, who had been watching the tumultuous beginnings of the convention with patience, and in silence, spoke up. “Gentlemen, we are missing something.”

 

Franklin knew that in order to move forward the battling delegates needed to find a common bond that was both inspirational, and demanded virtuous action. He reminded the delegates of the Revolutionary War, and how all odds were against the states that had united for war defeating the mightiest war power on Earth. Yet, with the Hand of Divine Providence guiding them, and protecting them, the newly formed union of states defeated the British, and stood at the gateway of an exceptional existence. But as those men were fighting over the dangers, and benefits, of a central government, they had forgotten to place the proceedings in the Hands of God.

 

Benjamin Franklin recounted all of the miracles of America, and explained how after four or five weeks of bickering, and disagreements, on virtually every issue brought to the floor, no matter how minor, it simply proved that human understanding is imperfect. He commented on how they had studied history for examples of good and bad government, including the different forms of republics. He went on to talk about the laborious research they had engaged in, looking at the current systems of government throughout Europe. No system studied, however, was perfectly suitable for the needs of the fledgling United States.

 

Even with all of that research, Franklin observed, they were still unable to find the political truth they sought. How is it that they could not find the answer? Could it be that something was missing?

 

Should they, perhaps, humbly appeal to The Creator? Should they not consult the “Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?”

 

The American Revolution was a dangerous undertaking.  The founders, Franklin reminded the delegates, were on their knees in daily prayer. The prayers were heard, for only His Favor could account for their victory.

 

Franklin said that they were “consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?”

 

Benjamin Franklin was not known to be a religious man, and he admitted that in his younger years he did not give much thought to the credence of the existence of God. But, as he had grown older, his observations were telling him otherwise. To explain this, Franklin said, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

 

Without God, he assured his fellow delegates, “We labor in vain.” Without God, the government formed by the convention would fail. Without God they would be divided, bickering over little partial local interests. Without God, the greatness that could be the United States would be lost to future generations.

 

Benjamin Franklin, the celebrated “deist,” then recommended that they pray before each session of the convention.

 

After the motion was seconded, an interesting development occurred.

 

Alexander Hamilton, and a number of others that shared his political views, after Mr. Franklin’s proposal was seconded, expressed their apprehensions about praying before each session of the convention. Hamilton believed the Constitution was limiting the authorities of the federal government too much, and now was bothered that God was going to be inserted into the convention.  Like the Democrat Party during their convention of 2012, the statists in the convention were not sure they desired that God be a part of their platform.

 

In the end, the delegates decided that no clergy could be hired, partly due to a lack of funds, and therefore a formal prayer before each session of the Constitutional Convention was not possible. Nonetheless, refusing to allow that to stop them from seeking God’s Will before continuing, the delegates walked to the nearest church, and congregated there for a prayer.

 

Later in America’s journey, based on Franklin’s request, the tradition of prayer before each session of Congress was initiated.

 

In the opinion of a majority of the founders, Divine Providence was an important key to the success of America, and was an integral part of the essence of freedom.

 

In the view of the Founding Fathers, limitations on the government, the preservation of individualism, and a reliance on Divine Providence, were inseparable from justice (defined as “rules of just conduct,” not a sanctioned distribution of income) and liberty.  Without that combination, the security of personal property, and natural rights, would be in danger.  “That alone is a just government,” wrote Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

 

The United States of America was founded upon the concept of classical-liberalism, which is consistent with limited government and the rule of law.  The essence of liberty was recognized in the limitations of government, in a system where checks and balances defended individuality, personal rights, and property, while preventing corruption, and providing a sound foundation for the emergence of a spontaneous free market that spawned wealth creation, and individual opportunity.

 

Until we recognize that the Constitution is the solution, and it provides the most sound system of governance when it comes to a long-run viewpoint, rather than what we see emerging where the majority rules through a purely democratic system, we run the risk of losing our liberty.  An informed electorate, by taking a long-run view, and exercising their original authority through the sovereignty of their States, will protect and preserve individualism, and be more aware of the political tides.  Understanding the essence of liberty makes us more likely to recognize the constitutional limits that insulate economic life from politics and prevent free-loader behavior that embraces the redistribution of wealth, rather than the creation of wealth through a free market system.

 

For the essence of liberty to prevail, government must be limited, and just.  The security of individualism, natural rights, and property must take precedence over political philosophies, and the misguided desire of the ruling elite to engage in social engineering.

 

The essence of liberty is found in the limitations of government, and a limited government promotes economic freedom, the rule of law, and the preservation of the rights of the people.

 

Without limitations on government, the essence of liberty will become nothing more than a memory of freedom.

 

Douglas V. Gibbs

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

Doug V. Gibbs is a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs.

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

 VISIT J. D. Longstreet’s “INSIGHT on Freedom” Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

U.S. Constitution, Original Intent … Douglas V. Gibbs

U.S. Constitution, Original Intent

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

A friend of mine has been battling with folks that claim the Constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the whims of Congress and the courts. One of the people combating my friend uses case law to define the constitution, and sees the original writings as nothing more than guidelines.

In other words, she believes the typical leftist-induced propaganda that has been thrust upon us for over two centuries.

Sadly, she also claims to be a conservative – and a lawyer.

Law School claims to teach Constitutional Law, but the Constitution is never opened.  The entire concept of Constitutional Law in Law School is based on Case Law.  The original writings, the original language, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution is not even considered.

Those who wished to subvert the Constitution from the very beginning worked to use the courts, and “implied law,” to disarm the Constitution, so as to allow the federal government a greater opportunity to grow beyond the limitations placed on it by the specific language of the Constitution.

The idea that the Constitution is living and breathing, changing with the rolling tides of culture and society, is a concept dating all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon’s Common Law prior to the Magna Carta.  Before the Glorious Revolution, the law was not written down.  Common Law was known and assumed by all, and it changed as society changed, morphing as need be.

The Royal Family reached a point in history where there was no heir, so the Anglo-Saxons in England had to import their royalty, and with the new Dutch and German influence, the principles of liberty and a free market as existed during the Anglo-Saxon era were slowly smothered by the idea of a strong monarch as was common in the rest of Europe.  Eventually, realizing that their freedoms and rights were disintegrating, The Glorious Revolution took place, and out of it was written the Magna Carta – a written law that was not designed to be living and breathing as was Common Law, but a set of standards written in the form of a social contract.  The people believed that if their laws and principles of a free society were in writing, it would be more difficult for the monarchs to circumvent it.

Along with studying the histories of Rome, Greece and Slovenia as examples of past republics, the primary research by the Founding Fathers was from their own Mother Country, England.  The Anglo-Saxons provided the principles the founders needed to establish a lasting system of freedom, and liberty.  They also recognized how easily statists could use the courts, or the living and breathing concept of Common Law, to change the Constitution, so the founders put into the Constitution strict standards, and a limited means for changing the Law of the Land (through amendments), while also making the Judicial Branch the weakest of the three branches of government.

Immediately, statism began to work to change the Constitution, through the financial world, and the courts.  Alexander Hamilton, in his argument for a Nationalized Bank, created the concept of “Implied Powers,” which, once accepted as being a constitutional concept (of which it never was), could change the original intent of the Constitution by the simple use of an argument that claims whatever is the aim is constitutional because it is implied by this clause, or that clause.  In reality, it is a way to circumvent the Constitution – to allow actions by the federal government that may not necessarily be permitted by the enumerated authorities granted.

Shortly after Hamilton’s assault on the Constitution during the 1790s, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court launched his own attack on the document.  In his opinion of the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, John Marshall established that the federal courts have the power of judicial review.  Today, the “power” is accepted, and unquestioned.

Judicial Review allows the courts to review the law and determine if it is a just law, or even if it is a constitutional law.  This is a commonly accepted concept, and it flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who wanted the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution – not the courts.

To determine if a law is constitutional is to decide if the federal government has the authorities detailed in the law in question.  Since the federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, are a part of the federal government, Judicial Review is indeed a sinister power for the courts to have.  For the federal courts to decide if a law is constitutional is for the federal government to determine its own authorities.  That, my friends, is hardly in line with the idea of limited government as originally prescribed by the founders.

The courts, through case law, have acted as an agent for the forces that are determined to bring down our system, and change it into a tyranny.  Those who have bought into the case law myth, as has our female lawyer twitter friend of my friend, are accomplices in the effort to bring down our system of liberty, and limited government.

The damage is widespread, and the statist opinions are entrenched in our system.

Take the Commerce Clause, for example.  We are told that because of the language that reads, “Congress shall have Power. . . to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” it means that the federal government can control and restrict commerce between the States all it wants.  The concept was solidified in the Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942, where the courts determined that a wheat farmer pulling his wheat off the market, to be used only for the personal consumption by his family did not make him exempt from federal control, because the absence of the wheat in the market would influence interstate commerce, thus giving the federal government the authority to continue to tax his crop.

The madness becomes evident when one studies the history before the Constitutional Convention regarding interstate commerce, the discussions as laid out by Madison’s Notes on the Federal Constitution, and the definition of the word “regulate” as the founders meant it to be.

Prior to the writing of the Constitution, the States were, among other things, charging each other tariffs on goods crossing State lines.  The trade wars worsened, and interstate commerce had slowed to a crawl.  The wise men of the Constitutional Convention realized that they needed to do something that would allow the federal government to enable the commerce to flow freely, while still protecting State Sovereignty.  They decided that the federal government would be given the authority to “regulate” commerce between the States in order to break the stalemates.

To better understand what was meant, one can look up the definition of the word “regulate” from that time period.  In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, one finds that among the definitions was the one the founders intended to use: “To Put In Good Order.”  The federal government’s authority was to put commerce in good order by acting as a mediator, or referee.  The federal government was never supposed to restrict or control the movement of commerce between the States, for that would not only not get commerce flowing, but it would bind the movement of commerce in a worse way than it already was.

The Constitution was not written to give the courts or executive more power, but to limit their powers.  The strongest of the three branches of government was supposed to be the voices of the people and the States in Congress.  Statism, however, abhors representative systems, and since this nation’s founding has worked to circumvent the original intent of the Constitution.  Tyranny is their goal, and the simplest way to combat that was to enumerate the federal government’s powers in a constitution, and make the people, through their States, the final arbiters of the Constitution.

Case Law was never intended to be the law of the land, and the Constitution was never intended to be “living and breathing.”  It is a set standard, a social contract that spells out in specifics what the federal government can do. If the authority is not granted by the Constitution, then the federal government simply does not have that authority.

It is all very simple, really, if you stick with Original Intent, and don’t try to complicate the whole thing with the flawed opinions of judges and lawyers.

Douglas V. Gibbs

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Liberty Inherited by John L. Hancock

Hamilton’s Curse by Thomas J. DeLorenzo

Wickard v. Filburn, Case Brief Summary

Regulate: 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language

Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention – Avalon Project

Supreme Court: You have no right to remain silent – Evidence of the Damage Caused by Judicial Review – Political Pistachio

Myth #4: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not. – Political Pistachio

Unconstitutionality of Judicial Review – Political Pistachio

Changing the Constitution, and the Conditioning of America – Political Pistachio

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

VISIT J. D. Longstreet’s “INSIGHT on Freedom” Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!) **************************************************Hypersmash.com

Ping Blog

href=”http://pingates.com”>Pingates

hiphone

Immigration, and the Unconstitutional President … Douglas V. Gibbs

Immigration, and the Unconstitutional President

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Thanks to the Democrat Party, racial politics has become a full blown weapon.  As deconstructionists, who wish to show America as being a racist nation so that they may better be able to put into place their own liberal agenda, the image of Trayvon Martin laying on the ground with a bullet in him has created a racial divide that is doing wonders for the liberal left agenda.  As race hustlers, who have made that case much larger for their own agenda, it is inevitable that the effects of the case will spill over into other issues, such as immigration.

Racial politics is a very destructive weapon, and the opponents of the U.S. Constitution are doing whatever they can to create an environment of rage in relation to race in America.  The “race card” tool is also one that the Left is using in regards to illegal immigration.  The issue of immigration, however, has little to do about immigration with these people as much as it has to do with changing America at its foundation, adding new voters to their cause, and betraying the Constitution of the United States.

One only needs to travel through the text along the pages of the Law of the Land to recognize how unconstitutional the push for amnesty truly is.  From the Preamble to the Fourteenth Amendment, we find that the liberal left’s angle on this issue places in danger our national security, the sacrosanct nature of citizenship, and the importance of the rule of law.  Though the word “immigration” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the issue exists throughout the pages of that document.

The need for a Constitution was realized when Shays’ Rebellion proved that the United States Government was not strong enough to protect the union.  When Revolutionary War veterans blocked the steps of courthouses over financial troubles that grew while they were serving the new nation, the government under the Articles of Confederation were unable to quell the insurrection.  It took the merchants in Boston putting together a mercenary force to resolve the problem.  Through the States needed to protect their State Sovereignty by ensuring the central government was limited, the new country also needed a government strong enough to dispatch the necessary options for protecting the union, and ultimately the sovereign States.

We the People, through our States not only wished for a more perfect union, but one that followed the rule of law, existed with domestic tranquility, and was defended against external enemies, be they military invaders, or invaders of another kind.

In Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress is granted the legislative powers of the United States Government.  This means the federal power to make law, modify law, or repeal law rests in the halls of Congress.  The concept of “Separation of Powers” means that no other branch has this power, meaning they cannot act legislatively from a constitutional point of view.  What this means is that all Executive Orders that creates law, modifies law, or refuses to enforce law, are unconstitutional.  When Barack Obama signed executive orders putting in place the Dream Act, for example, it was against the Constitution, which is the law of the land. . . which makes his executive actions that attempt to legislate illegal, and void.

The current democrat president’s way around this issue has also been to refuse to enforce immigration laws that are on the books – and action that is once again unconstitutional.  Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president “shall take care the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Enforcing current immigration laws are important because, as it states in Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is tasked with guaranteeing that each of the States are protected against invasion.

Originally, the States had full authority over immigration.  They decided for themselves who they would allow in, and who they would prohibit.  The goal was to attract immigrants that were more beneficial to the State’s growth, while also ensuring that the immigrants desired to be fully loyal to their new home.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution inserted the federal government into immigration by enabling Congress to pass laws prohibiting who could migrate into the States.  It is important to note that the clause does not enable Congress to dictate to the States who they have to accept.

In the lawsuit by the federal government against the Arizona immigration law, the federal government was not only trying to stop the State of Arizona from enforcing immigration laws on the books, but to force Arizona to accept illegal aliens that the law says are unlawfully in their State.  In the process of filing the court case the Department of Justice went against the Constitution by filing the case in one of the inferior federal courts.  Article III, Section 2 is clear, “all Cases. . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”  In other words, Eric Holder should have filed the case directly with the Supreme Court of the United States, for that was the only court that had the jurisdiction to hear that case.

Even the idea that anchor babies are citizens just because they were born on American soil is unconstitutional, and in direct violation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they formed our federal government through the writing of the Constitution.

The American Revolution was only supported by a third of the population.  The second third was ambivalent, unconcerned over who won the war, as long as their lives continued on no different after it was all over.  The final third of America’s population were against the push for independence, and considered themselves to be loyal to the British Crown. As far as they were concerned, those that supported independence from Great Britain were traitors to the Crown.  After the war ended, most of the “Tories” went to Great Britain, unwilling to live in a place that had broken ties with Mother England, and unwilling to live in a place where they could become targets because of their attitudes against American independence.  Not all loyalists went to Britain.  Many of them remained in the United States, and it was because of these people that the importance of “full allegiance” to the United States resided in the minds of the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided loyalty. Even a hundred years after the Revolutionary War, President Theodore Roosevelt understood the importance of full allegiance to the United States:

“Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” — Theodore Roosevelt, 1919.

Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, after hostilities ended the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States “legally,” and because they were here legally they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, written primarily by Senators Howard and Trumbull, aimed to ensure the emancipated slaves, and their children, received citizenship, while also guarding against divided allegiances as intended by the founders.  Therefore, the language used is very specific.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The term “subject to the jurisdiction, thereof,” is the key, here. If you go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment, “full jurisdiction” means in part “full allegiance to America.”

Since illegal aliens are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, their children born in the U.S. are not automatically American citizens.

Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Exact quotes:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

He even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.

Clearly, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.

The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The full quote by Senator Trumbull reads:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”

Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:

“Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.

Then there is amnesty, the elephant in the room of all immigration debates.  Not only does it conflict with all of the other constitutional concepts we have been discussing in this article, but it also flies in the face of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which prohibits the federal government from passing ex post facto law (retroactive law).  Amnesty makes previously illegal behavior retroactively legal, which is directly in opposition to the Constitution.

What we have here is an unconstitutional president, pushing unconstitutional immigration actions in an unconstitutional manner. . . and to make sure you disregard the illegality of his actions, he is creating a racial divide in this country, and will accuse any opposition to his unconstitutional immigration policies as being racist against the illegal aliens.

The solution?

We must all be active in the fight.

Douglas V. Gibbs

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

 Doug is a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs.

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

 

VISIT J. D. Longstreet’s “INSIGHT on Freedom” Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

George Zimmerman Trial: Media Incites Nationwide Violence … Douglas V. Gibbs

George Zimmerman Trial: Media Incites Nationwide Violence

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

 

The media and the liberal left are coming unhinged.  In their minds, since they figure they have the power to control everything, this trial against George “Creepy-Ass Cracker” Zimmerman should have been a slam-dunk.  Poor little innocent Trayvon Martin, of whom President Obama says if he had a son the kid would look like Trayvon, was the victim of a mean racist attack.  We are being told that Zimmerman hunted down and killed the poor child because poor, innocent Trayvon Martin was black.  And now, as the wheels come off, and it is beginning to look like Zimmerman is going to walk because his story that Trayvon attacked him and his was a fight of self-defense, the Left, through politicians and the media, are inciting race riots.  They want this to be the Rodney King riots, on steroids.

 

As the testimonies pile up, it is becoming more and more clear that Zimmerman’s story is the true one, and any witness that is supposed to help the case of Trayvon Martin, is actually hurting him.  The liberal left demands that George Zimmerman must be convicted as a racist “white Hispanic.”  The Jury is not supposed to consider the law, for why should they?  The Supreme Court ignored the rule of law with the gay marriage case, so why should the jury in this case care about the rule of law?  The Supreme Court ruled based on their rage against those that dare oppose the homosexual agenda, and the media demands that this jury rule in the same way.  Never mind the evidence.  They need to be enraged that the racist “creepy-ass cracker” dared to fight against Trayvon Martin, and kill him.

 

Since the liberal left is losing the case, we have to remember that it originally gained media attention just before last year’s presidential election to remind the democrat voters how racist them right wing loonies are.  But since now, when they hope to remind America how racist we are to protect the democrats in preparation for the 2014 midterm elections, the Left is resorting to inciting violence.

 

On ABC News Nightline, anchor, Dan Abrams, interviewed Sanford, Florida, police chief Cecil Smith, asking him, “If Zimmerman is found not guilty, is your office ready for that?”

 

The police chief responded, “I believe we have plans that will be able to deal with issues as they arise.”

 

Abrams then came back with, “I assume the worst-case scenario, then, would be riots?”

 

The police chief said there was no talk of riots.  “We are not talking about riots. We’re talking about rallies. If people choose to come to Sanford and voice their opinions or if they want to come and rally, we welcome that. We want people to have the opportunity to express themselves.”

 

The media is not satisfied with that.  They want violence.  They want blood in the streets.  They want a crisis that will finish off the opposition, and enable them to report how racist America is.

 

Remember, the liberal left democrats have gone beyond trying to win anything.  They believe they have won it all. . . well, except the House of Representatives, and that will resolved, they believe, in 2014.  And to achieve the one party system they crave, they are working to eliminate the opposition, and gain greater control over the population. . . and a good, violent crisis might be just what the illegal alien in the White House needs.

 

Barack Obama was a community organizer.  An agitator.  Now, the media has learned from him, and they have become agitators too, and they are agitating for riots.

 

What is amazing about all of this is how quickly the people forget.  In 2008, when Obama was running on the messiah ticket, we were being told that he was proof we were moving beyond racism, and that if Obama was elected we would live in a post-racial America.  Yet, the racism has blown up, exploding.  Obama has agitated everyone he considers would work well in the fight against rich white republicans.  He is causing racial strife, and it is by design.  He is not a great uniter, as he claimed, and he never intended to be.  The goal has always been division, chaos, and violence.  That is how tyranny solidifies control.

 

The useful idiots in the media are calling for race riots, inciting violence, because they know the Zimmerman trial is not going their way.  The Left has been totally invested in Zimmerman being found guilty and heading to death row.  Hell, they are even willing to settle for manslaughter, if they can get it.  But now, the liberal left realizes they will likely lose the Zimmerman case.

 

What is being realized now is that there never was a case.  The prosecution has bad witnesses on the stand, and no leg to stand on, because this case was purely political.  They wanted to scare Zimmerman into a guilty plea, and he refused, and now they have no evidence to put him away.  In fact, the arrest warrant is even laced with fraud.

 

It is like the Duke Lacrosse case all over again.  The poor black dancer accused the racist rich white athletes of doing her wrong.  Everyone demanded that the team be thrown out of school, and arrested.  But it turned out the woman lied, and the deconstructionist claim that we are a racist nation was delayed. . .

 

Until the Trayvon Martin shooting.

 

Deconstructionists can’t change a healthy America into something the Founding Fathers never intended.  They have to convince all of us that America is damaged goods.  If America is damaged, it must be changed, or at least that is the attitude the liberal left democrats are banking on.  Remember, Obama wanted to fundamentally change this nation, but you don’t fix what ain’t broke, so they must convince you America is broken, tainted by widespread racism – otherwise, the democrats would be worthless, and would cease to exist.  If America is great, their whole platform is worth nothing.

 

And if they can’t get their racism claim confirmed by the courts, they will have to do it with violence in the streets.

 

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

 

Trayvon Martin Supporters Promise Riots & Looting if Zimmerman is Acquitted – American Overlook

 

Florida Prosecutor Indicted for Falsifying Arrest Warrant against George Zimmerman – Before It’s News

 

George Zimmerman Probably Won’t Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter – ABC News

 

Biased media refused to show current pics of Treyvon Martin with gold teeth and tattoos – Free Republic

 

As George Zimmerman Prosecution Implodes, A Media Invested In His Guilt Grows More Shrill – Mediaite

 

Why Does Zimmerman’s Trial Get Round-the-Clock Coverage? – National Review

 

Florida City Braces for Zimmerman Trial – CNN

 

Did Zimmerman Prosecution Overreach? – CNN

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

 

Doug V. Gibbs is a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs.

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

 

VISIT J. D. Longstreet’s “INSIGHT on Freedom” Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

<a href=”http://www.hypersmash.com”>Hypersmash.com</a>

<a href=”http://www.pingblognow.com”>Ping Blog</a>

<a href=”http://pingates.com”>Pingates</a&gt;

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling: Stigmatization of America … Douglas V. Gibbs

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling: Stigmatization of America

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Throughout the United States, gay marriage proponents are celebrating, proclaiming that the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 has made the legalization of gay marriage the law of the land.  They are now aiming at ensuring that gay couples may receive full marriage benefits in each of the 50 States.  The problem is, the courts did not rule that gay marriage is constitutional, in the case of the Proposition 8 case.  They ruled that the defenders of Proposition 8 had no standing.

As for DOMA, it was unconstitutional in the first place.  Marriage is not an issue the federal government has the authority to be involved in.  There is no place in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority over marriage, so in line with the Tenth Amendment, that would make it a State issue.  My argument, however, has always been, “Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?”

A friend of mine told me that government involvement in marriage began in The South after the civil war to keep white women from marrying non-white men.  Federal involvement began in the 1930s, when the necessity to decide what will happen to benefits like Social Security became an issue.

The questions over legal standing, or constitutional authorities, are not the reality of what these rulings are all about, however.  As always, when it comes to the liberal left, things are not always what they seem.  The claim that this is a civil rights issue, and that all the homosexual community wants is equal rights, is an illusion.  Like everything else associated with the progressives of the Democrat Party, the aim is politically motivated.  The goal is less about securing rights, and more about the elimination of all opposition.  The call for gay marriage is about destroying marriage.  The call for gay rights is about silencing the opposition.  The call for homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right is all about the destruction of Christianity.

Supreme Court support is only a small step towards the ultimate goals of the homosexual agenda.  I fully expect gay couples to begin visiting the more conservative churches, demanding that they marry them, and when these churches refuse to, for these couples to take a legal stance and sue the churches for denying them their constitutional right to be married.  The IRS will begin to revoke the non-profit status of churches for daring to preach on homosexuality.  The gay community calls marriage a right, so that they may use it as a weapon to deny the religious rights of those that dare to oppose them.  They are commanding that the government recognize their sexual perversion as normal, for their “loving relationship” to be recognized by the law, tossing aside God, and setting in their sights anyone that dares to use religion as a tool to oppose them.

The language used by the majority opinion was not about the law, but about a political agenda.  The liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy, ruled against traditional marriage not based on law, but on their rage against those that dare oppose gay marriage.  With that kind of language, what the High Court did was demonize anyone that dares support traditional marriage.  The liberal justices arrived at their decision not based on the rule of law, but because of what they think of opponents of homosexual marriage.  Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, recognized that the antics of the left in the Supreme Court makes the court no different from any venue in this country where people argue.  Their hatred for conservatives drove their ruling.  The ruling had nothing to do with the rule of law, and everything to do with hardball politics.

So what happens now?  What is going to become of our society now that the homosexual agenda has obtained this legal victory?  Yes, I know that they will now target religious institutions, and sue these institutions for daring to refuse to bend over backwards for the gay mob – but what will be the long term effects on our society?

Polygamy groups, and pedophiles, are already calling for similar treatment.  “It’s our turn,” they are saying.  Once a barrier is broken, and the envelope is pushed, it doesn’t stop.  Degradation always progresses, it gets worse, and once moral standards are removed, great civilizations collapse from within.  Wrong becomes right until no standards exist at all, and then the society is unable to move forward – because it stands for nothing.

The gay agenda’s culture war will now engage in a battle against those that support traditionalism, claiming their “hatred” is no different than Jim Crow laws.  The opposition to homosexuality will be ridiculed into silence, and the courts will be utilized to force all of those “haters” into compliance.  First, all churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.  Then, they will be forced to hire gay Sunday School teachers to lead the children.  Then, the Bible will be considered as being hate speech, and The Liberal Left will do what it can to drive the final nails into what they hope will be a dying church – just as Communist Russia did, just as Communist China did, and just as every other anti-God dictatorial tyranny in history.

According to Brian Camenker, what happens next is easy to predict, because the model has already established itself, in Massachusetts.  Same-sex marriage becomes a “hammer” to force acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone.

In California, and Massachusetts, teaching homosexuality in only the best light is now law, and we can expect similar laws to appear in the other States.  Our children, despite our objections, will be taught to celebrate homosexuality.  They will be exposed to the agenda through lectures, literature, and lesson plans.  The children will be reprimanded if they dare think in opposition of the gay agenda.  The teaching will dig all the way down to early elementary years, and the lessons will include discussions about gay sex, and intercourse aids such as sex toys.

Parents that dare speak out in disagreement will be treated with hostility.

The goal is to ensure the children let go of the traditional model of the family unit they may have been taught by their parents, thus destroying in our society the biblical definition of family.  The children will be told that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, just like their own parents.

As pointed out by Mr. Camenker, in Massachusetts, when a parent of a kindergartner calmly refused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and jailed overnight.

When second graders at the same school were read a book about two men who fall in love and marry each other, ending with a picture of them kissing, parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin complained.  They were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt their child out.

In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts, parents have no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in schools.  Once homosexuality clears the legality hurdle, the teaching establishment believes the school has a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out their children. Acceptance of homosexuality will then become a matter of good citizenship, and dissent will become criminal.

The liberal left, behind the shield of the courts and political correctness, are telling you the schools have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe, and resistance is futile.

Brian Camenker wrote that after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, school libraries radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have expanding shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and “lifestyle” in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents’ complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Kids are going to be taught that homosexuality is not a sexual behavior, but a great civil rights victory, and that someday people will look back and wonder how it was that anyone could think otherwise.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and middle schools across Massachusetts, according to Mr. Camenker, now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender days.” Combating “homophobia” is a top priority, and the schools will not only “celebrate” homosexual marriage, but are already moving to promote other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality.

In Massachusetts, as a result of the indoctrination, parents are losing their kids to The State, and more children in Massachusetts are self-identifying as “gay.”

The gay agenda, on the heels of their Supreme Court victory, will also utilize health services and hospitals to forward their agenda.  In Massachusetts, nearly every major Boston hospital has become an active supporter of the radical homosexual movement. This includes marching in the “Gay Pride” parades, holding homosexual events, and putting on numerous “gay health”-related seminars.

In his article on the subject, Brian Camenker discussed a story about a major Boston hospital that threatened to fire a physician when he objected to its promotion of homosexual behavior. In 2011 a prominent physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston — a large Harvard-affiliated hospital — objected to the hospital being involved with “Gay Pride” activities. He also pointed out to his superiors the medical health risks of homosexuality, and said that he and others at the hospital considered homosexual acts to be unnatural and immoral. The hospital then threatened to fire him, telling him that same-sex marriage is “legal” and that his comments constituted “harassment and discrimination.” After a “hearing” he was allowed to keep his job, but was told to apologize and to keep his opinions on these matters to himself.

Dissent in that case was frowned upon.  Now that the Supreme Court has ruled as it has, any opinion that is in opposition to homosexuality will become criminal on a national level.

Businesses and insurance companies will also be forced to accept the homosexual agenda.  Employees in businesses will be able to be fired for expressing religious objections to same-sex “marriage.” In 2009, a deputy manager at a Brookstone store in Boston was fired from his job for mentioning his belief to another manager who had kept bringing up the subject with him that day. Brookstone’s letter of termination (quoted on local TV news) said his comment was “inappropriate” because “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.”

The wedding industry will be forced to comply on all levels.  Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must accept same-sex marriage events or be held liable for discrimination.

In Massachusetts, businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” – now that homosexual marriage is “legal.” Then they report “tolerance violators” to authorities, and businesses can be fined and punished. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality.”  This will become the norm nationwide as the gay agenda works to force all businesses into compliance with the acceptance of homosexuality.

The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex marriage “law.” In 2007, a Boston man failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about homosexual marriage.

In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual “marriage.” Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system.

Camenker goes on to write that in the year after the “gay marriage” ruling, the Massachusetts’ adoption and foster care workers went through a massive indoctrination on “LGBT youth awareness.” We will now see the same nationally, as well.  The emphasis will be, as in Massachusetts, that those working with children must be trained that homosexuality (and transgenderism) are normal. At one session, the trainer announced that the new motto is, “To tolerate is an assault; you have to accept” this behavior.

Homosexual “married” couples in Massachusetts can demand to be allowed to adopt children – through any agency – including religious agencies.  The same will happen nationwide.

As in Massachusetts, gay events will also become more prominent in the public square.

As we have seen in other places where gay marriage has been made legal, the real targets become religious institutions, and more specifically, anyone or anything associated with Christianity.  Like Brian Camenker states happened in Massachusetts, nationally the trend will become the norm as Churches and religious people are targeted, demonized, harassed and threatened, with no punishment for the perpetrators.

If any of these religious institutions hold events promoting traditional beliefs, they will be targets of militant retribution by homosexual activists, and the gay activists will be treated with immunity from the law, as Cemenker states they are being treated in Massachusetts.  Christians, however, have been, and will be, arrested and fined for daring to disagree with the homosexual agenda.

The following examples by Brian Camenker provide a chilling reality of what we will begin to see on a national level in the near future:

In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words “Two men are friends, not spouses” on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church’s fence saying, “Spread love not hate.” Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, “It is legal for two men or women to be spouses.” Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense.

In 2010 a Catholic elementary school balked at letting a lesbian couple enroll their son. As a result, the school was excoriated in the media and even by the local liberal state representative as “discriminatory.” The privately-run Catholic Schools Foundation then threatened to withhold funding to the school unless it relented. The Archdiocese eventually backed down and the school reversed its policy.

In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.

In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized by Catholic Vote, yelling “Bigots” and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.

In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.

In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.

Hardly a sign of freedom in the United States.  The homosexual agenda has made it clear that they can disagree with you about what you believe, but if you dare disagree with them you will called names, stigmatized, and ridiculed into silence.  With the recent Supreme Court decision, now they will also be able to use the law to force you into silence.

The gay agenda is oppressive, working to force its beliefs upon you whether you like it, or not.  They have gained the support of activist judges, the media, the entertainment industry, the public schools system, the collegiate educational system, and liberal politicians.  The gay agenda plans to use that support to impose their sexual behavior on the citizens of the United States, whether you like it, or not.  The small percentage of Americans that call themselves gay are largely not in this fight in order to claim the right to marry.

Homosexuality is not historically a monogamous community.  The gay lobby is not in this fight so that they can win their civil rights, or because marriage is actually that important to them.  Theirs is a battle to kill any opposition to their behavior, to force justification, and to destroy any and all opposition.

They wish to force upon America their agenda, to force you to accept it – otherwise, you will be silenced, and ultimately destroyed.

They have achieved through the Supreme Court the stigmatization of America, and disagreement is now criminal, and will be silence.

Our response?

Now is the time to really make noise.

This is not about whether or not a group should have rights, but whether or not they should be allowed to deny the rights of anyone who dares to oppose them.  I, for one, don’t plan to have my right to disagree with their agenda taken away from my under the force of law.

Whatever happened to the liberal claim: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Christians Now: Enemies of the Human Race – John McTernan’s Insights

IRS Could Revoke Non-Profit Status for Religious Institutions over Same Sex Marriage – Breitbart

Christian Pundits Say They’re the Real Victims int he Gay Marriage Fight Now – Yahoo! News

Antonin Scalia’s Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping with Sarcasm – Business Insider

What Same Sex Marriage Has Done To Massachusetts – Mass Resistance

WE TOLD YOU SO: Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings – Clash Daily

California Passes bill mandating pro-gay teaching in schools, no parent opt-out – LifeSiteNews

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals – Northern Colorado Gazette

 

Douglas V. Gibbs

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

Doug is a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs. 

Federal Power Grab: Standing Army and Civil Disturbances … Douglas V. Gibbs

Federal Power Grab: Standing Army and Civil Disturbances

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congressional appropriation of money for funding the Army is limited to two years.  There is no limitations on funding the Navy, and in fact the Congress is instructed in the next clause to “provide and maintain a Navy.”

The Founding Fathers feared a standing army.  Yes, an army is needed for the common defense of the nation, in order to protect the union, and the sovereign States, from foreign invaders.  However, the fears of the federal government growing into a tyranny, and using the standing army against the citizenry, was a reality.

Douglas V. Gibbs

When the police were marching through the streets of Boston in search of the Marathon Bomber, I wondered if there was anyone else as uncomfortable with the jackboot troops going door to door and searching the homes without a warrant.  What is even more interesting is that it wasn’t the police marching through the streets that caught the hiding Chechnyan, but a citizen who went against police orders by going outside to have a cigarette, and noticing something wrong with his boat.

Sure, I get it, they were just trying to do their job.  But how close were they to the fine line between “protect and serve” and “police state”?

What kind of precedent did the Boston street to street search set?

It is bad enough that we have a liberal left control of government that considers pretty much anyone that opposes them to be potential domestic terrorists.

The U.S. Code has just been adjusted to make it easier for the federal government to provide military support to the already military-style capabilities of local law enforcement agencies.  The Pentagon has granted to the military the ability to police the streets of America without obtaining prior local or state consent.

Prior to this change, federal agencies have to obtain permission of local authorities before entering into and operating in local jurisdictions.  From a Constitutional point of view, the move is an invasion of State Sovereignty, and yet another move towards federal control over the States, and turning our society into a police state.  The allowance, according to the new language in the U.S. Code, is that military intervention can me used in the event of “civil disturbances.”

One wonders how long before the federal government decides to define a TEA Party Rally as being a civil disturbance.

A defense official claims this authority is nothing new, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Is the domestic enemy that has gained control of the federal government going to claim that all opposition to their policies are domestic enemies?

The military commander will have unlimited powers on the scene, being allowed to judge for himself his own definition for what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” and if the circumstances might be considered an “emergency.”

And once the federal government begins to exercise this power, the slippery slope will be in full swing.  The government never gives up power – it only increases it.

The U.S. military is allowed to intervene according to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect the States against invasion, and when the State requests assistance through the legislature, or executive if the legislature cannot convene, against domestic violence.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Military Power Grab Goes Into Effect – Long Island Press

Scary: “Patriot Groups” likened to domestic terrorists on the same day Holder says President can assassinate Americans on U.S. soul – Glenn Beck

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

VISIT J. D. Longstreet’s “INSIGHT on Freedom” Face Book Page!!:   (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

<a href=”http://www.hypersmash.com”>Hypersmash.com</a>

<a href=”http://www.pingblognow.com”>Ping Blog</a>

<a href=”http://pingates.com”>Pin

Boston Marathon Massacre Crisis Opportunity … Douglas V. Gibbs

Boston Marathon Massacre Crisis Opportunity

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

People exist.  They go about their business, and they worry about their own lives. As Ted Nugent said, in a comparison of people with deer, “All they care about is, What am I going to eat next? Who am I going to screw next? and, Can I run fast enough to get away?”[1]

 

Okay, fine, in that quote Mr. Nugent was dissing the French, but in reality, we are all like the deer to a point.  The deer-like “all we care about” kind of thinking can be beneficial, and it can be destructive.  We are individuals, but we have a responsibility to our society to participate in it, and ensure that our system remains moral, just, and in the case of the Constitutional Republic in the United States, a system that remains under the rule of law as provided by the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, most people, it seems anymore, aren’t very informed, and could care less about anything outside their little bubble of existence.  The 47%, as Mitt Romney called them, and perhaps a much larger slice of our American civilization than that, could care less about whether or not society is functioning properly, just as long as they get what they think is coming to them.  As my son once said to me, “What do I care?  People will do what they do, and government will do what it does.  I have too many of my own things to worry about to care about society, the culture, or politics.”

 

Politicians know this of us.  They know that they can do pretty much anything they want as long as you don’t notice it affects you negatively in a big way.  If their actions don’t adversely affect our lives in an obvious manner, we won’t do a single thing to stop them.  This is why progressivism has been injected into the American culture through creeping incrementalism, and schemes of moderate social-engineering, over the last hundred-plus years.  The strategy has always been to promise peace, and a safety-net provided by the government, but never to make it appear that what they are doing is liberty-killing socialism.  They must never, according to their strategy, deliver so much socialism that the American people discovers the nature of their game, and removes them from office.[2]  The culture must be cultivated, and slowly taught that the socialist reforms pose no danger to anyone in particular.  Opportunities to inject larger doses of statism are rare, but the best time to inject statism in large quantities is during a time of crisis, for when the peace and safety of society is at risk, increased government intrusion will not only be welcomed, but will actually be applauded.

 

A segment of the American political system, for example, has always wanted to put into place stiffer gun control legislation, with the eventual goal of the full confiscation of firearms.  The powers supporting anti-gun legislation schemed to create a public demand for such legislation through the Fast and Furious gun-walking tactic where guns were secretly put into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, and as expected innocent people were killed with those guns.[3]  The planners expected Americans to united in an uproar against American guns being so easy to buy, giving the schemers the opportunity to pursue their gun control goals.  The strategy failed, however, because word got out that it was a politically motivated tactic.  Besides, in the American Culture, gun ownership is a precious right that the citizens recognize as also being a God-given fundamental right.

 

The gun control bureaucrats merely had to wait.  Their opportunity to try again would happen, because the eventuality of a crisis was inevitable.

 

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut supplied the anti-gun lobby their crisis, and now the ruling elite’s pursuit of gun control legislation is in high gear.

Karl Marx was once quoted as saying, “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”[4]

 

Naturally, the original goal was to simply convince the culture to accept socialism without governmental coercion.   Historic reality, thanks to the human tendency to seek one’s individual pursuits over the communal well being of the collective, forced that strategy to be short-lived, and the statists quickly realized that in order to put their plans of a society that is a homogeneous mass of like-minded sheep into action, they must abolish decentralization, remove representative institutions, and all voluntary associations must be subjected to government regulation and control in the name of “the good of the community,” or the “will of the people.”  The people must succumb to the concept that only the ruling elite can interpret what is best for society, and anyone that refuses to obey must be restrained by the body politic.[5]  It is for the best, the statists claim.  Only a wise ruling class that quells the “frightening path of psychotic individualism”[6] can protect what is in the public interest.

 

Enter, stage left, the Boston Marathon Massacre, where pressure cooker bombs were used to strike terror at the finish line of the annual foot race.[7]

 

Conspiracy theories swarmed the Internet immediately after the horrific terrorist attack in Boston, Massachusetts.  There were those that immediately called the bombing a “false flag operation.”[8]  The shadowy figures of government, the ones that have been working to move this nation away from the Constitution towards a system Karl Marx would be proud of, according to a number of prominent voices in media, were pulling the strings, orchestrating the terror, and were behind the massacre in Boston like they were behind the 9/11 attacks in 2001.  The evidence, these people claimed, was apparent, and this was just another stage of the Cloward/Piven strategy being used to force America into a totalitarian system never intended by the Founding Fathers.

 

The proponents of big government want nothing more than to achieve what conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones claim they are after.  I would not put it past the current administration to salivate over the possibility of creating a national emergency that would enable them to place the nation under martial law in the name of peace and safety.  The puppeteers, however, are no fools.  They know better than to show their hand.  Besides, as they learned from Fast and Furious, they don’t have to launch an operation designed to deceive the public so that they can reach their draconian aims.  All they had to do was wait, and the opportunity would come to them.

 

Islam considers the United States the “Great Satan,” regardless of who our political leaders are.  An attack by an organized Islamic group, or lone wolf terrorists who are willing participants in the perceived jihad against The West, was inevitable – and the planners in the shadows knew it.

 

No false flag was needed.  All the conspirators against the American System needed was to lie in wait until an event like the one in Boston came their way.  Then, the wheels of the machine bolted into action.  

 

It amazed me how easily the residents around Boston, during the manhunt for the Chechen brothers suspected to be the terrorists behind the Boston Marathon bombing, accepted lockdown and a house-to-house search.[9]  Martial law comes easy when a crisis is in gear.  In fact, the residents cheered when they saw law enforcement marching down the streets, in full armor, with weapons drawn after one of the suspects was captured.[10]  Fine, chalk it up to a job well done, but would the residents around Boston be cheering in the same way if the same armed force captured potential domestic terrorists, as defined by The State?  Would they be cheering when the same shock-troops were roaming the streets to bring enemies-of-the-state in?  Would they cheer if the suspected terrorists were military veterans, or TEA Party types, accused of daring to speak out against the government’s display of an ominous presence in our lives?

 

After all, the media, after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, were hoping and praying that the perpetrators were “right-wing extremists.”[11]  And even though the terrorists were not who the biased press assumed, the seeds were planted.  The uninformed public who think like deer, heard that those conservative-types could have done this.  The federal government doesn’t need a false flag.  All they need is for just one person calling himself “anti-government,” or anything other than a supporter of Barack Obama, to act in a manner that could be considered terrorist-like, and the opportunity will be sprung.

 

The goal of big government is to eliminate all opposition.  Once those that cry out for limitations of government are made out to be dangerous to the collective, the deer will cheer the capture of those “anti-government radicals,” and think they are doing so in the interest of the common good.

 

They may even chant “USA, USA” as the troopers haul the “activist” into custody.

 

The statists don’t need a false flag, or a conspiracy.  All they need is a crisis.

 

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, November, 2008[12]

 

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

 

[1] Nugent on Deer’s Final Thoughts – Snopes

 

[2] Epperson, A. Ralph, The Unseen Hand, Tuscon: Publius Press, 1985; page 47

 

[3] A Furious Revelation: FEDS sold guns to drug gangs – The Daily Reflector

[4] Karl Marx Quote: Meaning of Peace – ThinkExist

 

[5] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008, page 22

 

[6] Lincoln Screenwriter: Obama Win a Rejection of Psychotic Reagan Ear Ideology – NewsBusters

 

[7] Boston Marathon bombs: pressure cooker evidence recovered – Guardian U.K.

 

[8] Sickening: Alex Jones calls Boston Marathon Bombing a False Flag Operation – Twitchy

 

[9] Lockdown, house-to-house manhunt near Boston – Reuters

 

[10] As manhunt ends, new questions emerge in Boston bombings – USA Today

 

[11] CNN Analyst: Right-Wing Extremists Could Be Behind Boston Marathon Bombing – Breitbart

 

[12] In Crisis, Opportunity for Barack Obama – Wall Street Journal

Nullification Against Gun Control … Douglas V. Gibbs

Nullification Against Gun Control

By Douglas V. Gibbs

“Shall not be infringed.”  Those words are an order to the federal government.  The central government shall not infringe, in any way, against the fundamental right of keeping and bearing arms.  The Second Amendment is clear.  For the purpose of having a militia that is in good order so that it may protect the States against tyranny, be it foreign, or domestic, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When breaking down the language of the Second Amendment, one realizes that the amendment applies only to the federal government.  The reason?  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”  Necessary to the security of a free State.  A free Massachusetts, a free Virginia, a free Pennsylvania, a free Michigan, a free Alaska, a free California, and so forth.

Free from what?

Free from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government.

And who is to protect the States?

A well regulated Militia.

Who is a well regulated Militia?

Some will argue that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists, like the one that fought the Revolutionary War.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.

What about the part about the militia being well-regulated?

Looking at the Revolutionary War, the first thing we notice about the militia was that it was not in very good order.  Some of the patriots had no shoes.  The muskets were not the same sizes.

In the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, the second definition, after the one about weights and measures, was the definition the founders meant by the word “regulated.”  The definition is: To put in good order.

For the purpose of having a militia in good order so that it may protect the States against tyranny, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution that any unconstitutional federal law is null and void.  This means that all federal regulations regarding the right to keep and bear arms are null and void, because they are unconstitutional.  And because the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States have the right to nullify (ignore and refuse to implement) any unconstitutional federal gun control laws.

And it is beginning to happen. . .

Iron County, Utah is making a preemptive strike against the Federal government’s attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. According to a press release, “Laws that violate 2nd Amendment are null and void and have no effect in Iron County, Utah.”

On Thursday, March 14, the Kansas House of Representatives approved House Bill 2199, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would nullify any new federal restrictions — passed either by Congress, presidential executive order, agency order, rule, or regulation — on firearms, magazines, and ammunition.

The bill originally passed Wednesday, March 13, by a voice vote, but the actual official recorded vote was not taken until Thursday, when it passed 94-29.

These are just the latest in a whole slew of attempts to nullify the federal government’s assault on the fundamental rights of American citizens.

The real question is, when the federal government tries to force the States into compliance, will the authoritarian liberal dictators in the federal government win over the States?  Will the States buckle under the pressure of the courts?  Or will they stand firm on the Constitution, and protect the rights of the people in their States?

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Title 10, Chapter 13, U.S. Code, Militia – U.S. Code, House.gov

Regulate Definition – 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language

Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions: October 1798 – Avalon Project, Yale

Iron County Utah Tells Feds, Don’t Try to Enforce Gun Laws Here – Freedom Outpost

Kansas House of Representatives Passes Gun Control Nullification – The New American

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

Doug is a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs