But their lack of information doesn’t just apply to the candidates they vote for or the issues that are important to them; it also applies to some of the most basic founding principles of this country — up to and including the First Amendment.
The First Amendment Center has conducted yearly studies asking people their opinions of certain freedoms and how far they extend. But before they get to that point, they ask people to simply name the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment.
The results, as the below (see above) chart shows, are somewhere between depressing and less-than-inspiring.”
It comes as no surprise that the more the State spends on “education” the less informed our youth become . For two generations the education system has been moving away from basic history and civics and into all of the touchy-feely , propaganda that serves to minimize the accomplishments of our forebearers and the individual and consolidate the belief in the all-powerful State , all with the help of our compliant “watchdogs” in the media …
The State and their media lackies are proceeding with a systematic curriculum of misinformation designed with the specific intention of making the “common folk” forget about their basic rights under the Constitution and allow power to be usurped and aggregated in the hands of the politicians and the bureaucrats , all in the name of the “public good”.
” If you want to stand in the room where America as an idea was conceived, visit Montpelier, where James Madison grew up, lived most of his life and died.
Montpelier is a beautiful place, nestled in the foothills of Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. On clear days, you can see the peaks rising in the distance through the second-floor window in the library of the restored plantation house. I stood in that spot recently and trembled at the magnitude of what took place there, in the mind of one man. “
” You can imagine Madison looking out that very window for inspiration during the months he spent alone there before the historic summer of 1787, poring over his own books and the many volumes of history, philosophy and politics sent to him by his friend and political ally Thomas Jefferson. When he emerged from his self-imposed intellectual retreat, Madison carried the ideas that would form the basis of the U.S. Constitution and its first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Without those founding documents, our nation — which was then a shaky confederation of former colonies on the verge of squandering their hard-won independence from England — would not exist. And you would not enjoy the right to speak, worship, vote and assemble with others as you please. Neither would untold millions of other people across the world, freed from their chains by the ideas Madison not only forged but ceaselessly labored for, wrote about and campaigned to see ratified.
To be sure, the encouragement of Madison’s great mentor Jefferson (who also wrote a little something called the Declaration of Independence) was crucial. So was the instant credibility George Washington brought when Madison persuaded the beloved revolutionary general to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Many others contributed to the basic principles that went into the Constitution, both during Madison’s formative years in the Virginia legislature and during the long, hot summer of the convention itself, where he spoke more than 200 times. “
” But without Madison in his finest hour, where would we be today?
” As a framer and defender of the Constitution he had no peer,” historian Garry Wills wrote. “No man could do everything for the country — not even Washington. Madison did more than most, and did some things better than any. That was quite enough.”
He would go on to serve two terms as president, lead the young country through the War of 1812 and live until age 85, the last of the Founding Fathers to pass off the scene. Yet in that pivotal year of 1787, James Madison was 36 years old. And he was far younger when he began grappling with the ideas that would make him the “Father of the Constitution.”
I highlight Madison’s youth at the time in order to pose a question: Where are the Madisons of today? More specifically, where are the spiritual Madisons?”
” We keep hearing that the Millennials, born after 1980, are leaving churches in droves (or never joining in the first place), that they are wary of making commitments to faith communities, government, school, marriage or any other institution. They like having unlimited options, we’re told, and prefer digital social networks to joining or forming the groups that traditionally have held society together.
The Pew Research Center supplied more confirmation of those attitudes in its study released March 7, “Millennials in Adulthood: Detached from Institutions, Networked with Friends.”
” The Millennial generation is forging a distinctive path into adulthood,” the study reported. “Now ranging in age from 18 to 33, they are relatively unattached to organized politics and religion, linked by social media, burdened by debt, distrustful of people, in no rush to marry — and optimistic about the future. … [H]alf of Millennials now describe themselves as political independents and about three in 10 say they are not affiliated with any religion.”
Pew said Millennials are “at or near the highest levels of political and religious disaffiliation recorded for any generation in the quarter-century [it] has been polling on these topics.” “
” You have to give Millennials credit for being optimistic about the future, given the crummy economic and career prospects they’ve been handed. Maybe that’s the natural energy and hope of youth. The grim economic outlook of recent years, not to mention massive student debt, also explains part of their reluctance to get married and enter into other major social or financial commitments. The issue of trusting others, however, is revealing.
” Millennials have emerged into adulthood with low levels of social trust,” Pew reported. “In response to a longstanding social science survey question, ‘Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?’ just 19 percent of Millennials say most people can be trusted, compared with 31 percent of Gen Xers [born from 1965 to 1980], 37 percent of [the Silent Generation, born from 1928 to 1945] and 40 percent of Boomers [born from 1946 to 1964].”
People tend not to interact with those they don’t trust — and definitely won’t willingly work with them, join churches or other voluntary organizations with them, or cooperate with them to keep civil society functioning.
Perhaps you’re a Millennial believer in Christ, but you’ve decided to take a pass on being part of a local church. It’s an outmoded institution encrusted with irrelevant traditions, you say. You’re “spiritual but not religious,” so you intend to worship on your own or with a few close friends. You plan to do ministry and missions that way, too, rather than bothering with bulky religious organizations that might waste your time and money.
It’s your choice. But consider this: What if James Madison had decided to go it alone after the American Revolution? He could have stayed at Montpelier and enjoyed his big Virginia plantation — and let others worry about a fledgling nation on the edge of collapse. Instead, he rolled up his sleeves and plunged into the long, exhausting task of dialogue, debate, compromise and coalition-building that went into creating the United States of America out of the competing interests of 13 ornery colonies.
The church, a far older institution than the United States, is also the body of Christ. Christ commands that we not only worship, serve and proclaim the Gospel alongside other sinners saved by grace, but that we love them.
In order to form a more perfect union, we must commit ourselves to renewing the imperfect one we have. We need you to be a part of it.”
“ I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute,” Mr. Schumer said.”
Of course the First Amendment is absolute , just as all the rest of The Bill Of Rights are . What kind of idiots do our “elite universities” produce that our “leaders” , the ones responsible for writing new laws , are not even familiar with the intent of our Founders ?
The entire intent of the establishment of the Bill Of Rights was to codify certain “inalienable” rights and thus put them beyond the reach of future “Statist” politicians such as the “Honorable” Chuck Schumer and his ilk . Even a lowly non-Harvard grad such as myself knows that .
” While Jefferson is deemed the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, he was not intimately involved in the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments to that founding document.
Indeed, Jefferson was out of the country, serving as minister to France at the time of both the Constitution convention and the congressional debate over the Bill of Rights. His fellow Virginians, James Madison and George Mason, are usually credited with being more influential in the process — Mason for being among the most forceful in demanding the protections of such a Bill of Rights, and Madison for being the political muscle that got them approved.
“ Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance,” the National Archives writes on its web page. “One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments.”
The Archives goes on to recount Madison’s efforts to shepherd a package of 17 amendments through the House in 1789 — a number that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate, before being submitted to the states.
Of those, 10 were ratified fairly quickly. An 11th was ratified two centuries later, becoming the 27th Amendment.”
This story highlights the ignorance of Chuck Schumer not only in regards to the authorship of the Bill Of Rights but also vividly illustrates his woeful knowledge of the Framer’s original intent which is spelled out in terms that even a moron of Schumer’s caliber should never be able to misconstrue :
What part of “unalienable” does Schumer fail to grasp ? For his enlightenment here is the definition from no less an authority than Merriam-Webster :
” un·alien·able
adjective\ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, –ˈā-lē-ə-\
:impossible to take away or give up “
So Mr Schumer , as you can see , our basic rights are endowed by Godand not by you and your fellow politicians whether put forth in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill Of Rights were , are and have always be intended to be inviolate regardless of whether you and other elected representatives approve of what they stand for or not .
That was the genius of our founders , a trait that has been all but lost in our present ruling class . The Founders actually foresaw the day when people of your sort would attempt to deny the people’s rights with your talk of a “living Constitution” and so fashioned our governing charter as they did .
Bunkerville mentality: Dissident rancher Cliven Bundy walks past the Bureau of Land Management’s designated First Amendment Area in Bunkerville, Nevada. The land outside the orange fencing stretching as far as the eye can see is the federally designated Non-First Amendment Area
” Indeed. The “First Amendment Area” is supposed to be something called “the United States“. If the Bureau of Land Management gets to determine which sliver of turf you can exercise your right to freedom of expression in, then it isn’t freedom of expression at all, is it? I’m less impressed by the First Amendment then I used to be, mainly because I’m having to spend a half-decade in court and a seven-figure sum for the privilege of hearing some judge years down the line inform me that my 270-word blog post is, in fact, permitted under the US constitution. (If you’d like to help lessen the toll of that seven-figure sum, I’d be awfully grateful.) But even so it’s extraordinary that even twerp bureaucrats from the Department of Compliance feel comfortable setting up an “orange plastic pen” labeled “First Amendment Area”. If an anonymous pen-pusher in the permanent bureaucracy can confine the Bill of Rights to tiny enclaves where it will be entirely ineffectual, then there is no Bill of Rights.
By the way, what’s depressing about this is, if the issue worked its way in front of a judges or judges, the genius jurists would undoubtedly rule that, while an 11-foot wide free-speech zone is too narrow an interpretation of the First Amendment, it would be acceptable if you widened it to 17 or 18 feet.
~ I was on The John Oakley Show in Toronto yesterday, and, noting my reference to Magna Carta, a handful of American listeners emailed to ask why I only mention laws eight centuries old. Yeah, I’ve noticed that, too – not just Magna Carta, but the Assize of Clarendon and the Charter of the Forest:
In 1217, King Henry III signed the Charter of the Forest, which despite various amendments and replacement statutes remained in force in Britain for some three-quarters of a millennium, until the early Seventies. If Magna Carta is a landmark in its concept of individual rights, the Forest Charter played an equivalent role in advancing the concept of the commons, the public space. Repealing various restrictions by his predecessors, Henry III opened the royal forests to the freemen of England, granted extensive grazing and hunting rights, and eliminated the somewhat severe penalty of death for taking the king’s venison. The [National Park Service] have not yet fried anyone for taking King Barack’s deer, but it is somewhat sobering to reflect that an English peasant enjoyed more freedom on the sovereign’s land in the 13th century than a freeborn American does on “the people’s land” in the 21st century.
And so, as happened to Japanese and European tourists at Yellowstone, you can be arrested for photographing the King’s deer. That’s why I quote this stuff: if a 13th century peasant enjoyed rights a 21st century American doesn’t, something’s gone badly wrong.”
” A high school student in upstate New York was suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt that touted the second amendment after he refused to turn it inside out or cover the words with duct tape.
Shane Kinney, a 16-year-old sophomore from Grand Island, located between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, said he served a one-day, in-school suspension Monday after he refused last Friday to turn his T-shirt inside out at the request of the vice principal at Grand Island High School. The shirt was emblazoned with the NRA logo and the words, “2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed” across the back.
“ Mr. Lauria [the vice principal] told me I had to either turn the shirt inside out or put duct tape over the words,” Shane Kinney told FoxNews.com. “I told them that I wasn’t going to do it. I had to sit in the suspension room and eat lunch alone until my father brought me a new shirt to school.” “
Fox News has the whole story which is eerily reminiscent of Jared Marcum’s plight except that Jared was also arrested .
” There is no greater lie than false hope, and hope in politicians is as false as you can get. Political Hope is the ambiguous notion which convolutes and embeds itself in the irrational psyche. It causes a foggy disposition which comes over you like the most mind-altering of drugs. It is Empty promises, empty rhetoric, and a consistently inconsistent message all under the presupposition that the best way to live is to have someone else tell you how to live, what to think, and how to do it, yet it’s worse than that, because that “how” is not a suggestion – it’s a mandate ! http://www.truthovercomfort.net “
” Worse than Richard Nixon. An unprecedented abuse of powers. The most un-American president in the nation’s history.
Nat Hentoff does not think much of President Obama.
And now, the famous journalist says it is time to begin looking into impeachment.
Hentoff sees the biggest problem as Obama’s penchant to rule by executive order when he can’t convince Congress to do things his way.
The issue jumped back into the headlines last week when, just before his first Cabinet meeting of 2014, Obama said, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions.”
“ Apparently he doesn’t give one damn about the separation of powers,” Hentoff told WND. “Never before in our history has a president done these things.” “
” The debate Edward Snowden envisioned when he revealed the extent of National Security Agency (NSA) spying on Americans has taken a bad turn. Instead of a careful examination of what the NSA does, the legality of its actions, what risks it takes for what gains, and how effective the agency has been in its stated mission of protecting Americans, we increasingly have government officials or retired versions of the same demanding — quite literally — Snowden’s head and engaging in the usual fear-mongering over 9/11. They have been aided by a chorus of pundits, columnists, and present as well as former officials offering bumper-sticker slogans like “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” all the while claiming our freedom is in direct conflict with our security.
It’s time to face these arguments directly. So here are ten myths about NSA surveillance that need debunking. Let’s sort them out.
1) NSA surveillance is legal.
True, if perhaps you put “legal” in quotes. After all, so was slavery once upon a time in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa. Laws represent what a government and sometimes perhaps even a majority of the people want at a given point in time. They change and are changeable; what once was a potential felony in Colorado is now a tourist draw.”
” A full-time professor on the faculty of the newly-minted Texas A&M University School of Law called for the repeal and replacement of the Second Amendment on Friday.
The professor, Mary Margaret “Meg” Penrose, made her controversial declaration during a day-long panel symposium on gun control and the Second Amendment at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford.
UConn’s main student-run journal, The Connecticut Law Review, organized the event, according to Connecticut Public Radio. It was well-attended, primarily by law students, law professors and local attorneys.”
As far as we are concerned any so-called “law professor” that advocates repealing ANY part of the Bill of Rights is unworthy of the title and the profession . The whole progressive notion that the Constitution is some sort of living , breathing , open to re-interpretation document is ridiculous on it’s face . God given rights don’t exist and reign supreme for centuries only to be suddenly determined obsolete by a more “enlightened” society .
The difference is not in the times that the rights are being applied , the difference lies in the mindset of the people that find themselves hamstrung by those rights . We don’t live in a more dangerous world that requires more State intervention , we live in a world where too much State intervention has rendered the populace helpless through generations of mindless indoctrination from the State school system and the State run media .
The difference between the time when all revered the 2nd amendment as they revered the others and today is not a matter of changing times and/or circumstances but of a changed attitude by our “betters” who would have us all as chattel , to think as we are told and to do as we are told and the 2nd amendment is a serious impediment to their Statist ambitions .
Remember too that the battle for individual liberty is not taking place solely on the 2nd amendment battlefield but rages on all fronts while Congress , NSA , DHS and others deprive us of our 1st and 4th amendment rights and president Obama and his drones are carpet bombing amendments 5 though 8 into oblivion .
Just so it’s fresh in everyone’s mind these are the bedrock principles of human dignity and self-governance that have , in two brief centuries , raised our country from an upstart colony to undisputed (for now) leader of the world . The Bill of Rights has enjoyed near universal respect throughout the vast majority of that time and only now as the progressive dream for America heads for the dustbin of history does a certain faction posit the notion the our historic charter is “out-dated” or in need of “revision” .
It’s merely a variation of the Left’s signature modus vivendi … moving the goalposts/changing the rules whenever they are exposed as the charlatans that they are … NONSENSE … The Document is as timeless as all freeman’s rights .
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
” In the ongoing federal government shutdown, one fiscal fact has raised some eyebrows. Despite the furlough of many federal employees, members of Congress are staying at work—with pay. One congressman, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), answered a question about this from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last week by noting, “There is a bit of a constitutional issue … when you are dealing with the paychecks of members of Congress.”
One generally shouldn’t trust politicians to know what they’re talking about when it comes to the Constitution, but the congressman got this one right. The reason is the 27th and latest constitutional amendment, which states: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” “
A photo of the worksheet asking students to “omit” two Amendments in the Bill of Rights
” A student in Bryant School District in Arkansas brought home a worksheet that presented her with a scenario that referred to the Bill of Rights as “outdated” and that as part of a special committee she would need to throw out two of the Amendments.
The worksheet was handed out to Sixth grade students in a History class. According to the girl’s mother, Lela Spears, she has not received any government or civics classes and this was the first assignment dealing with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The school district is participating in the embattled Common Core curriculum.
As more anecdotal evidence emerges concerning what will be taught under the Common Core, states are beginning to rethink their position on the program.”
” The Senate’s official website page on the Constitution says the Second Amendment right to bear arms could be a collective right, not an individual freedom.
The website explains the Second Amendment this way: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
The Bill of Rights, however, was the Founding Father’s way of guaranteeing each and every individual their “unalienable rights,” as “endowed” by God. On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — at least twice in the past five years — that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Breitbart reported.”
” Before the debate over tightening national gun-control laws was rekindled by the latest mass shootings, at the Washington Navy Yard and in Chicago’s South Side, a growing number of Americans were questioning the government’s stewardship of the right to bear arms, according to a poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that concluded at the end of August.
Asked to size up how the government is doing on protecting a variety of rights and freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights and federal law, Americans saw slippage on almost all issues, most dramatically on the matter of gun rights, where the impression of decline turned up everywhere — among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns.
Overall, 44 percent of Americans feel the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57 percent two years earlier. Of course, definitions of “good job” on gun rights diverge; not everyone wants the government to safeguard Second Amendment rights.”
” In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendant being told he had the right to remain silent. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:
The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government. That is the profound error in the decision. As the dissenters noted, in the circumstances of the case, it was evident what Salinas was doing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complicated the law for persons who are the most vulnerable–persons who lack education, persons who do not speak English very well, persons who may suffer from mental problems, and persons who may be under the influence of alcohol. This is a bad day for the Bill of Rights.“
It is becoming painfully obvious that the judicial branch is every bit as corrupt as the executive and legislative branches of government . It is the “Government” versus the governed . But remember , they cannot govern without our consent .
” A high school social studies teacher in Batavia, Illinois, faces disciplinary action for informing students of their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with a survey asking about illegal drug use. The survey, ostensibly aimed at assessing the needs of students at Batavia High School, was distributed on April 18. After picking up the survey forms from his mailbox about 10 minutes before his first class of the day, John Dryden noticed that they had students’ names on them and that they asked about drinking and drug use, among other subjects.”
” Gun owners in New York who don’t want their license information available to the public are facing a deadline to file an exemption form with local licensing authorities.
Starting Wednesday, the records of anyone who has asked to be exempt from the state Freedom of Information Law will be kept secret. But the information will be available for gun owners who haven’t acted.
The secrecy provision was included in January legislation that toughened New York gun laws to require registration of military-style weapons as well as pistols and limit the number of bullets allowed to be loaded into a clip or magazine.
* The form to request the exemption is available online and must be given to the local authority in charge of licensing. Anyone who doesn’t file by the initial deadline, including those getting new licenses, may still file in the future. Their records will be subject to FOIL requests in the meantime.”
The Form Itself Which You Can Download At The Link Below
For more information or to download a copy of the FOIL exemption form, click here.”
Note that the entire procedure is arbitrary and capricious and subject to the whim of your local licensing agent . You must list a reason why you feel that you should be granted your privacy rights . As usual the the whole business is stacked in favor of law enforcement and your application is subject to approval .
If you are not under an order of protection , sitting on a jury or a current or retired law enforcement officer you may not be able to maintain the privacy of your records . Read the app and give it a try . It will probably depend on the attitude of your local pistol licensing agent .
” The FBI has some strange ideas about how to “update” federal surveillance laws: They’re calling for legislation to penalize online services that provide users with too much security.
I’m not kidding. The proposal was revealed in The Washington Post last week — and a couple days ago, a front-page story in The New York Times reported the Obama administration is preparing to back it.
Why? Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI have long feared their wiretap capabilities would begin “going dark” as criminals and terrorists — along with ordinary citizens — shift from telephone networks, which are required to be wiretap-ready under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), to the dizzying array of online communications platforms available today.”
” Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general’s report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.
But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” ”Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.
Among the other revelations, on Aug. 4, 2011, staffers in the IRS’ Rulings and Agreements office “held a meeting with chief counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.”
On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement,” the report says.”
Changing the criteria from “tea party” and “patriot” to “limiting government” and “educating on the Constitution/Bill of Rights” is an improvement ?
We are in the hands of a amateurish tyrant and the Chicago way has now become the Washington way .
SHERIFF BRAD ROGERS – I Will NOT Allow Gun Confiscation
” Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers speaks on defending the 2nd amendment. The rally was sponsored by the St. Joe County Republican party and was attended by over 200 supporters from all over the area.
” In a rousing speech which is sure to inspire pro-gun rights advocates across the nation — and enrage those who choose to limit the Second Amendment — Mike Vanderboegh took to the Connecticut State Capital yesterday. Speaking at the Connecticut Citizens Defense League’s Second Amendment rally, Vanderboegh — one of the men who broke the Fast & Furious debacle, declared “civil war is starring us in the face.”
” The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“I am appalled,” said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.”
Boibeaux’s son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School. On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, ‘The Second Amendment Today.’
“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” the worksheet states. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.
The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.
“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.” “
” The furor over the signing into law of Senate Bill 13-013 earlier this week by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper went viral following the publishing ofan article by Mike Opelka at theblaze.com.Opelka suggested that the new law could be “used to arrest or force county sheriffs to enforce the state’s new gun laws,” whether they wanted to or not.
This is insane! In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could [ignore the sheriff entirely and] arrest any individual if he believes the law has been broken…
I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws.
By the sounds of it, Colorado is being targeted with an attempt to set up loopholes that will allow the U.S. Secret Service to arrest and remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law, or anyone [else] breaking the law.”
YouViewed/Editorial 