New York State Non-Compliance Resistance to the NY Safe Act Arms Bill

Link to video (full 33 minute version) from January 29, 2013 Q&A forum

From YouTube:

"Residents of Erie County, New York overflow the State's dictating / Q & A forum concerning the
unconstitutional NY Safe Act arms bill.

The passion and anger from the people is evident of Erie County resistance.

After the first speaker spoke, the second one was introduced. A request from an audience member to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance was ignored by theState. So the people took over and assertively
recited it anyway.

The State attempted to have private interviews with the media which alienated the crowd further, who
then demanded transparency. Then the State wanted the questions from the audience to be private, which riled folks even more.

Questions asked by Western New Yorkers covered: non-compliance, penalties, jury nullification, 2nd
Amendment profiling into domestic terrorists, government tyranny, police, sheriff, and more.

Other topics, and especially on the people forming militias was missed due to full camera memory.

Welcome to blue collar Buffalo.

* * *

Clarence, NY (WKBW) -

A question and answer session on New York's new gun law turned testy, as gun owners unleash a fury of anger on the new legislation.

Frustration boiled over for people who feel as though they are law abiding citizens, being turned into criminals.

For many, it was a chance to vent anger at Albany.

One WNYer even said "You put a brown shirt on Mr. Cuomo and put him on
television, he would look just like Hitler."

Another chimed in, "Angry people get together, they form militias
folks. This country, this WNY is prime for something like that!"

Western New York gun owners say they SAFE Act and its ban on assault weapons makes no sense.

One of the big concerns -- who is footing the bill for making changes to guns that are now considered assault weapons. State officials told the crowd the gun owners are the ones responsible.

People in the crowd also had a lot of questions about the registration laws. One gun owner asked,"What is the penalty if you don't register it? 'Cause I guarantee there's a lot of people that aren't going to."

At times, advocates felt answers were incomplete or political."

Link to video (short version)


Link to video (full 33 minute version)

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:

"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)

As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*

Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:

• The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
• Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
• The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
• Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
• Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
• The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
• The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
• The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 

Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:

"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)

"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)

Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:

"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)

The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Jack Lew's Signature

This is the signature of the nominee to be the next Secretary of the Treasury:

Lew's Loopdeloop

It looks like a child's doodle, not even coming close to resembling his name except for perhaps the first loops potentially forming a "J."  (My signature is not awesome, but at least I make an attempt and can explain its form.)

I'm not trained to interpret people's personalities based on their handwriting, but in this case I'm going to anyway.

Is his signature reflective of some sort of nihilist, post-modern world view that he may possess, where nothing, including his own name, has any meaning?  This world view will help in Washington since fiscal responsibility apparently has no meaning anyway.

Or perhaps it is a sign of supreme arrogance--he is so great, why should he have to lower himself to sign his name for those beneath him?

If he can't even take the time to make his signature even remotely reflect his name, why should we think for a minute that he will take the time to ensure his policies make sense for the people of the United States within the framework of our Constitution?  (I bet he does not hold the Constitution in high regard at all.)

His signature is ridiculous.  Here is some background on the man:

Sessions To Budget Director Lew: Stop Repeating Budget Spin (video)

Here's Obama's Message to GOP by Appointing Lew Treasury Secretary

Published: Thursday, 10 Jan 2013 | 1:41 PM ET

By: John Carney

Senior Editor, CNBC.com (link to article)

President Barack Obama is sending a pointed message to Republicans by nominating Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary: I'm not backing down from this budget fight.

This is certainly a blow to any hope that Republicans might have had that Obama would flinch from his pledge not to negotiate over the debt ceiling. The president has said he will demand a clean bill raising the debt ceiling, unattached to any conditions or spending cuts.

To call Lew's relationship with Capitol Hill Republicans strained would be an understatement. According to some on the Hill, there just is no relationship anymore.

"We do not even bother talking to him," a staffer for a Republican senator said. 

When Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell called Vice President Joe Biden as the deadline to cut a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff loomed, it was a sign of the tensions between the senator and Lew. McConnell had to create a new channel for negotiations because he could no longer go through the White House.

Here's how Manu Raju at Politico.com describes the tensions between Lew and Republicans:

Several Republicans said Tuesday they don't view Lew as a man interested in hearing GOP concerns. One aide called him "tone deaf" in understanding the compromises that Republicans could accept during high-stakes talks.

"No matter what you're proposing or no matter what compromise you're trying to forge, he comes at it from a position of, 'Whatever you want, I have to be against,'" the GOP aide said. "It doesn't advantage him in the negotiation, he doesn't get a different policy outcome than he would otherwise. It just irritates people. … It's as much personality as anything else."

These tensions are not new. Lew alienated Republican lawmakers during the summer of 2011 when he was director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. According to Rich Miniter's book Leading from Behind, House Speaker John Boehner complained during the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations that he simply could not negotiate with Lew.

Keep reading (full article)...

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Gun Control: Why the Rush?

Why the rush when it comes to the current push for gun control legislation (and executive orders)?

It is because those who want to control guns seek to capitalize on the current wave of emotion as a result of the Sandy Hook attack, so that there will be less of a chance that logic and reason will be brought into play.  That is why the power hungry love a crisis ("never let a crisis go to waste") so that they can take advantage of emotion and the absence, or even outright dismissal, of rational thought to achieve their own objectives.

It is therefore healthy for a free people to be skeptical of the actions of their government.  It is even more important that they do so when the government tells us such actions must be taken "quickly" to avert some sort of "tragedy."  We must force them to debate the issue using logic, facts, and reason within the framework of our Constitution to arrive at a solution, if a solution is required at all.

The current issue involves the right to bear arms as codified by the Second Amendment of our Constitution.  When any issue arises that may impact our liberties as citizens of the United States, we must deal with it in an deliberate and thoughtful manner to best safeguard our rights.  To cavalierly charge forward in a quest to solve some perceived problem has a high probability of trampling on our rights.  This may be by design, mind you, which I believe to be the case in the current issue involving our right to bear arms.

We must rationally consider the issue at hand in order to arrive at a sound solution (if a solution is necessary) that protects the freedoms of Americans.  To rush to a solution may throw away our rights in the process.

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Serrano Puts Forth Resolution to End Presidential Term Limits

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY)

Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) wants to repeal the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution that places term limits on the office of the President.  (Of note, Serrano is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which according to my research is an organization that supports Marxist policies.)

No, I repeat, NO President, whether Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, should serve more than two 4-year terms as President, whether continuous or separated by time.

In fact, members of Congress have clearly shown that they need term limits as well.

Why?  Because our "representative" government has become its own aristocracy concerned more with their own power, wealth and status rather than the needs and liberties of the people.  Term limits would only be the beginning.  We must elect representatives who actually understand, support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

January 5, 2013 by Tim Brown (source article)

Congressman Puts Forward Resolution To End Term Limits On Presidency

Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY) put forth a House resolution that would repeal the twenty-second article of amendment to the United States Constitution on Friday. This would effectively remove term limits on the Presidency should it be ratified by three-fourths of the States. It has currently been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. The resolution would also have to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds in each house.
[...]

The following is the text of the resolution put forward:

H.J.RES.15 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual… (Introduced in House – IH)

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 15

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2013

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article–

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

Continue reading (article continues)...

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Feinstein: Domestic Enemy of the Constitution

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, source) 

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (from Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," source)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380, source) 

As a result of her actions against the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Senator Dianne Feinstein has proven herself to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States.  Threats of this kind to our most basic rights are intolerable and the Constitution must be defended.  Feinstein has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of our Constitution, which she has sworn to support and defend:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  (Oath of a Congressman)

Who will now defend the Constitution and the rights of Americans?

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."  -- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942 (source)

The following list is taken directly from Senator Feinstein's website (Summary of Feinstein Legislation.pdf):

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms

• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic

• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test

• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test

• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment

• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and

• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;

• Type and serial number of the firearm;

• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Feinstein's remarks from an interview in 1995 where she tells the reporter that she would take them all if she could get the votes (unclear whether she means all types of firearms or all types of "assault weapons"):


--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Lieberman: Obama Use Executive Order to Address Gun Issue

"...if the President can do something now by executive order, God bless him."  --Joe Lieberman

Hey Joe--you as an elder statesman should understand that America is a Constitutional Republic and not a dictatorship.  We are not to be ruled by executive fiat.  If this is truly how you feel, then it is Congressional leadership such as yourself that has historically ceded too much power to the Executive Branch.

You have been in Congress how long and you think that the President should just issue an executive order when an issue arises...an executive order that may infringe on the liberties of the American citizen as prescribed by our Constitution?

Your first thought, to create a Congressional commission to see if something needs to be done, is a good one.  Go with that.  This national issue needs to be seriously debated by the representatives of the people, and not solved by a knee-jerk reaction from the executive branch.


--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Kansas Gov. Brownback: Stand Your Ground

"Americans United for separation of church and state is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving church-state separation to ensure religious freedom for all Americans."

Americans United is crying "foul" to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's "promotion of a fundamentalist prayer event" (a ReignDown USA rally):

Said Vickie Sandell Stangl, president of the Great Plains Chapter of Americans United, "The governor is really overstepping his constitutional bounds. He was elected to serve as governor of our state, not our state pastor-in-chief." (source)

The "separation of church and state," commonly believed to mean the prohibition of religious discourse in the public forum, is in fact a perversion of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. His statement to indicate the protection of the church from government interference has been completely flipped on its head to mean no religion in public discourse at all.

Few people know that the US Congress commissioned the publication of the first English Bible in the US to be used in its schools, which clearly does not support this interpretation of what Jefferson said in this letter. Nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is there a calling for the "separation of church and state," but instead it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning that they will not set up one denomination in particular as the official state religion of America (such as the Church of England), and "shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

According to Americans United, "Leaders of the fundamentalist movement want to tear down the wall of separation between religion and government and impose their religious viewpoint on all Americans."  Well, there never was a "wall" in the way you have interpreted it.

So Governor Brownback, continue to demonstrate the faith of our Founding Fathers--they would have wanted it that way.  God bless the State of Kansas.

Governor Brownback's Proclamation


TO THE PEOPLE OF KANSAS, GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, the State of Kansas will host the national simulcast of REIGNDOWN USA in Topeka on December 8, 2012, bringing thousands here from across the country; and

WHEREAS, people from across America will join the millions from around the world on TV simulcast live from MacLennan Park, in the heart of America; and

WHEREAS, the first REIGNDOWN celebration was held 2008 in Washington DC, on the Capitol Grounds, introduced by proclamation of the President of the United States of America, with millions participating on site, on TV, and by computer; and WHEREAS, regional REIGNDOWN events continued until the need was seen for the gathering to be held in the heart of our Nation; and

WHEREAS, many of our families have slid into poverty, endangering out next generation of citizens, our lands are parched by drought, our quality jobs are scarce, business and industry are struggling to expand, and many of our people have fallen into despair; and

WHEREAS, our Nation’s greatest leaders have called on a merciful God for favor during troubled times, such as:

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God.”- Abraham Lincoln, 1863.

“The propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” – George Washington 1789.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson 1787; and

WHEREAS, we collectively repent of distancing ourselves from God and ask for His mercy on us:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sam Brownback, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, do hereby proclaim December 8th 2012, as a Day of Restoration in Kansas and ask every citizen of our state to join in asking a Holy God to bring healing and restoration – help in mending broken lives, bringing peace to our families, our communities, and this land.

DONE: At the Capitol in Topeka under the Great Seal of the State this 23rd day of November, A.D. 2012

(source)

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Council on Foreign Relations Pushes End to US Sovereignty

Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, explained that the goal of our enemies is the "gradual surrender of America sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international organizations."  Throughout my research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) keeps coming up again and again as being one of the entities in America that is assisting in the accomplishment of that very goal.  The CFR, as indicated in the following article from The New American, has been very active in seeing that our sovereignty is slowly but steadily ceded to a world government, and should be considered an enemy of the Constitution and the American people.  Look upon the actions of all members of the CFR with great suspicion.

--Against All Enemies

CFR Pushes End to Sovereignty at UN's Doha Climate Summit
Written by  William F. Jasper
Link to article (The New American)

The UN Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, (see here and here) is in its second week, headed for completion on Friday, December 7. Most analysts and observers expect little in the way of major developments or breakthrough agreements to come out of it. With the world economy in shambles, and nearly all national governments awash in debt, there is diminishing incentive for politicians to spend scarce public funds on the much-hyped hypothetical future “threats” posed by global warming — especially when there are very real, tangible issues demanding immediate attention and funding.

However, the climate change lobby is not rolling over and calling it quits; they have too much invested to back away now. A tabulation of funding in 2007 by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, found that the climate alarmists had received over $50 billion since 1990. That was five years ago; naturally, the price tag has gone up considerably since then.

Most of this enormous funding avalanche came from governments, with the biggest chunk coming from the U.S. federal government. State governments have also been big funders, along with foreign national governments, the European Union, United Nations agencies, the World Bank, the big tax-exempt foundations, and major Wall Street banks and corporations. This money infusion has launched a huge climate industry, with universities, institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professors, scientists, researchers, and activists all dependent on maintaining the flow of funds. The major banks and investors that have jumped on board the climate change wagon see a great deal of green to be made from the global sale of carbon credits. Trillions of dollars could change hands, but only if a carbon trading regime is forced on consumers by governments.

Foremost among the groups that have been driving the global warming alarm bandwagon is the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). There are many think tanks affecting national policies, but the CFR, long ranked as the premier brain trust, is still the most influential. The UN Climate Summit in Doha will carry the CFR imprint in many ways, as have virtually all previous global conferences. Representing the U.S. government in Doha is President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. Stern, who was previously a White House assistant to President Bill Clinton, played a role in U.S. negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He was selected as Climate Envoy by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Todd Stern is a longtime member of the CFR.

Stern’s boss, Hillary Clinton, has explicitly confirmed what critics of the CFR have often charged: that the Council unofficially runs the U.S. State Department, and has virtually taken control of the entire executive branch of the federal government, regardless of which party may occupy the White House. In a famous speech at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Washington, D.C., office in 2009, Secretary Clinton referred to the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City as the “mother ship” and said she had been there often. She was glad, she said, that the CFR’s new Washington headquarters is so close to the State Department, making it easier to be “told what we should be doing and how we should think.”

Here is the opening paragraph of her address, after being introduced by CFR President Richard Haass:

Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

(A video of Secretary Clinton's remarks may be viewed at the bottom of this page.)

CFR “Mother Ship” Guiding U.S. at Doha

So, what is the CFR telling Hillary Clinton and her lieutenants about "what they should be doing and how they should think" at the Doha Summit? We are not privy to any of the private consultations between Pratt House and Foggy Bottom, but there is plenty to go on from the public pronouncements of the CFR’s spokesmen and members.

In “A Transitional Climate Summit in Doha,” a November 28, 2012 CFR “Expert Brief” by Michael A. Levi, director of the council’s Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, we are told that global climate change “threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.” Levi warns that there are dire “reputational” consequences for U.S. failure to support a more robust and restrictive climate agenda:

If the United States is isolated in its stance on financial or process issues, then it will suffer internationally. To prevent that, U.S. strategy will need to focus as much on keeping partners like Europe and Japan on a similar page as it does on the substance of any outcome. The United States will also come under fire for failing to cut its emissions sufficiently.

Levi, who is the CFR’s top guru on climate change, is surely aware by now of the overwhelming evidence, including admissions by some of the top alarmists, that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 16 years, all of the media horror stories and Al Gore pronouncements about impending Climate Armageddon notwithstanding. And he must surely be aware that no evidence supports the contention that a government-forced reduction of emissions by the United States would have any impact whatsoever on global temperatures. However, the financial, social, and political costs would be horrendous. As critics point out, it is a prescription for “all pain and no gain” — except for the politically connected, who stand to gain immense wealth and power under the proposed UN global climate regime.

Levi ignores the steadily mounting evidence to promote the CFR’s ongoing globalist line. “International climate diplomacy provides the United States with opportunities to leverage domestic action for greater impact abroad,” says Levi. “But the United States still falls well short of what it must do at home to reduce its emissions to ever lower levels.”

The CFR’s Levi was also a lead voice in the “extreme weather” catastrophe choir claiming that the deaths and damage from Tropical Storm Sandy could be laid at the feet of human-caused global warming. In a November 5 column, “Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change: Three Things to Know,” Levi hymned a predictable refrain. "Increased human emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to more risk of dangerous weather extremes," he said. “Reducing this risk requires cutting U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Levi and the CFR ignore completely the numerous climate experts, including many well-known alarmists who point out that not only did Sandy and other recent “extreme weather” have nothing to do with global warming, but that contrary to many recent media stories, there is no evidence of any increase in recent decades in either the number or magnitude of hurricanes and other extreme weather incidents.

Unburdened by any adherence to science and facts, the CFR pushes its same one-world agenda. “In Sandy’s aftermath,” says the CFR, we should work for “increasing global cooperation” on climate change. “At the international level, the United States should similarly seize on opportunities to work collaboratively with other countries on climate change challenges,” says Levi. Translated from global-speak: Exploit every possible tragedy and weather anomaly as an opportunity to establish, empower, and enrich the UN and related global institutions.

Do we exaggerate? You be the judge. In a July 5, 2012 CFR Issue Brief entitled, “The Global Climate Change Regime,” we are warned that “Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today.” Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), says the CFR, threatens us all with “widespread disasters in the form of rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification, famine, water shortages, and other secondary effects including conflict.”

Haass: World Government or Anarchy

What must we do to avert these calamities? Among other things, says the CFR, we must “create a global consensus regarding the creation of major greenhouse gas emissions targets and isolating intransigent countries.” What, exactly, the CFR means by targeting and isolating “intransigent” countries is not spelled out in that piece. But anyone who studies CFR programs, policies, and publications quickly realizes that the organization favors a world government — run by “wise men” and “eminent persons” such as themselves. And their envisioned world government — their new world order — does not contemplate tolerance for “intransigence” by sovereign nations. In fact, national sovereignty, according to the CFR, is the bane of world order.

CFR President Richard Haass (pictured above) says “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”

Keep reading (article continues)...

Video: Hillary Clinton admits that the Council on Foreign Relations dictates US policy


Link to this article at The New American

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Appeasement and Betrayal

By outlawing the criticism of Muhammad, a man who lived over a thousand years ago, and his ideology, Islam, we are appeasing the followers of that ideology and contributing to our own destruction.

In the 1930's, the world feared Adolf Hitler and appeased him by giving up land.  They thought this would satisfy him and bring peace to Europe.  They were wrong.  By giving in to his demands, they were only emboldening him and feeding his evil desires.

Now we are faced with a similar evil, but this time it is manifesting itself as an ideology wrapped in a religion that must be respected.  To appease its ravenous desires, we are not sacrificing land, however.  We are sacrificing our liberties, which is much more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous.

The first liberty we are sacrificing is our Freedom of Speech.  Laws are now in the works, most notably at the United Nations, that will forbid the insulting of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.  Should we ratify any such law, it will become Islam's point of penetration into the very fabric of our society, tearing past the defenses established by our Constitution and allowing Islamic ideology to attack all our institutions with relative impunity.

You see, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, established by their prophet, which dictates all aspects of life and government.  Should you criticize the ideology, you are ultimately criticizing Muhammad.  Thus their ideology will be beyond reproach, and will slowly and steadily destroy the institutions of freedom we hold so dear.  It will be the loss of our ability to speak out against it that will seal our doom.

Considering these proposed blasphemy laws, what if you are found guilty of criticizing Muhammad or his ideology?  What then?  Will it be a fine?  Will it be imprisonment?  Or will it be your beheading, as devout Muslims so vocally demand?

Do you see where this is going?  This is a means to an end to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.  It will begin with the loss of our voice, our ability to acknowledge, speak out against, and resist this evil.  It will be given a free pass in our nation to trample us underfoot...unopposed.

I will not defend the content of the movie "Innocence of Muslims," nor the way that it was presented.  But I will defend that individual's right under the First Amendment of our Constitution to say what he did.  Just as I will the individual who created the "Piss Christ."  Do I like either one--no.  But, should an individual be forbidden to express such things, what is to stop someone from forbidding me to speak my mind?  This, my friend, is the road to tyranny.

If our government is given the authority to determine which speech is allowed and which is forbidden, then they can outlaw dissent against the government.  Should this occur, we will all suffer under the tyranny that has risen within our borders.

--Against All Enemies

AAE blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Questions We Should Ask Of Our Leaders' Actions

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

--Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

What follows is the beginning of a list of questions we need to ask about the actions (legislation, regulation, policies) of our national political leaders to determine whether or not they conform to the Constitution and support what is best for the People.

1. Does it enhance/protect our individual liberties, or detract from them?
2. Will it cost Americans more or less (through tax or inflation)?
3. Will it increase or reduce the size of the Federal government?
4. Is this something the States can do?  Is it something the States should do?
5. What if we did nothing?  (Why is this really necessary?)
6. Who benefits from this?  Who does not?  (esp. monetarily)
7. Is this essential for our national security without unnecessarily limiting our liberties?
8. Is there another way of achieving the desired end, especially a way that does not involve the Federal Government?
9. Does it make the government system more predictable or less predictable for people to plan their lives and run their businesses?
10. Is it selecting the ends for people, or assisting the people in the achievement of their own ends?
11. Does it allow for the arbitrary implementation of the law, or does it apply equally to all people?
12. Does it undermine the separation of powers as described in the Constitution?
13. Does it infringe on a person's right to life?
14. Does it infringe on a person's right to property?
15. Is it being done with the consent of the governed?
16. Is it being established as a "work-around" in order to violate the Constitution?

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

America, Religion, and Depravity

Today we witnessed a brutal and senseless killing of innocent people in a movie theater in Colorado.  Some will declare that guns are the problem and that our right to bear arms must be curtailed.  Many will look to the government for solutions, to save us from ourselves.

What most people do not realize, however, is that our Founder Fathers already solved the problem by allowing for the free practice of religion (Christianity) in both public and private sectors.  Since the 1940's, however, the Supreme Court has steadily curtailed the freedom of religion in the United States, resulting in the massive increase of depraved behavior that we observe today.

Of note, the commonly used phrase, "separation of Church and State," is not to be found in either of our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  It is a phrase written by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists...a phrase that has been hijacked, perverted, and perpetuated by the ignorant and those who support the eradication of Christianity from the fabric of our nation.

(The discussion that follows uses David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant" as a resource for many of the quotes that are used.)

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The original intent of our Founding Fathers when they drafted this Amendment was:
(1) to prevent the US Government from establishing one religious (Christian) denomination as the approved State Religion, such as the Church of England or the German Church (which Adolf Hitler successfully commandeered to help achieve his own twisted ends), and
(2) to allow the free exercise of religion in public and private venues unless "its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." (1878 Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. United States )

Furthermore, our Founding Fathers, and those who followed shortly thereafter, clearly understood that our form of government required the Christian faith to maintain order in the nation by encouraging the good conduct of its citizenry. 

George Washington:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

"[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

John Adams:

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  (Works, 1798)

Noah Webster:

"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." (History of the United States, 1832)

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson alleviated concerns of the Danbury Baptist Association that the Constitution did not expressly identify the freedom of religion as an inalienable right.  Jefferson responded with a letter that reaffirmed the individual's freedom of religion that says in part:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."  (Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802) (You can also read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson here.)

However, beginning in 1947, the Supreme Court began misinterpreting the 1st Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter, specifically where he spoke of "a wall of separation between Church and State."  In short, the Judicial Branch of the United States Government began deliberately rejecting the Christian foundation of our nation and the morals it teaches, which are essential to the good behavior of its citizens.

In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court "interpreted the 'separation' phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena--that is, it interpreted the First Amendment not as a limitation on government interference but rather as a limitation on religious expressions and principles."  ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In its 1962 Engel v. Vitale ruling, the Supreme Court perverted the meaning of the word "church" within Jefferson's letter to mean "public religious activity" instead of "denomination."  They also perverted the use of the word "state" to mean the "public square." ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In 1963 Abington v. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bible could no longer be included in public education:

"[I]f portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the child."

In 1980 Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled against the public display of the Ten Commandments, stating:

"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments...[T]his...is not a permissible...objective."

Our Founding Fathers clearly articulated that to have good citizens you need to have religion and morality.  Thus you should not have to sit for long and wonder why we have such problems in our current time...we did this to ourselves.

I will leave you with some of the findings of the Colorado Board of Education on the Columbine shootings which clearly identify the lack of moral teachings in schools being partly responsible for the depraved behavior we are seeing in our children:

"As we seek the why behind this infamous event, we must find answers beyond the easy and obvious. How weapons become used for outlaw purposes is assuredly a relevant issue, yet our society's real problem is how human behavior sinks to utter and depraved indifference to the sanctity of life. As our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well, and it is not children, but adults in authority who are ultimately responsible for that....
As a Board we believe, with Edmund Burke, that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. We further believe that society must act now before it is too late for more innocent children. We also recognize that failing to act shall make us all accomplices in such future tragedies as may engulf our schools.

Accordingly, we make the following recommendations for renewing that unity and strength of purpose that has historically bonded our schools, our homes, and our society....
Finally, we must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools,
like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is
at the heart of our national character.

Today our schools have become so fearful of affirming one religion or one value over another that they have banished them all. In doing so they have abdicated their historic role in the moral formation of youth and thereby alienated themselves from our people's deep spiritual sensibilities.

To leave this disconnection between society and its schools unaddressed is an open invitation to
further divisiveness and decline. For the sake of our children, who are so dependent upon a consistent and unified message from the adult world, we must solve these dilemmas."  ("What is to be Done: Searching for Meaning in our Tragedy")

The main resource for this article is David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant."  I recommend that you obtain this pamphlet to enhance your knowledge of this topic.


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Bill Whittle: Rights v. Commodities

Bill Whittle is a very perceptive and intelligent man.  In the video that follows, he describes the difference between "rights" and "commodities," and the impact it will have on nation if we make owning certain "commodities" a right.

First, Bill describes a true right as something that does not have a cost associated with it.  In other words, it does not cost our government anything to grant us these rights.  Examples would be the right to free speech, bear arms, assemble, and worship freely.  These are currently encapsulated in our Constitution under the Bill of Rights.

Second, commodities are things that have a cost associated with it.  Examples of that can be found in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (yes, the assault on our liberty has been going on for quite some time) proposed second Bill of Rights (based on what he called "economic truths"), where you have the right to:

• a job
• good pay (earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation)
• decent home (please define...?)
• adequate medical care
• monetary protection against old age
• monetary protection against sickness and accident
• monetary protection against unemployment
• a good education (from FDR's Annual Message to Congress, Jan 11, 1944)

If it is your right to own these commodities, then you are no longer responsible for providing them for yourself.  It is now the responsibility of the State to provide all these things.  And if they are your right, someone else will have to pay for them if you cannot, or will not.  Who would that be, pray tell?  That would be the American People (well, those who actually believe that honest labor is important in life).

So if the American People have to fit the bill for your health care, for instance, they will want to pay as little as possible for it.  They will use this to justify limiting your freedoms (such as drinking Big Gulps--thank you Mayor Bloomberg) to ensure that you don't voluntarily worsen your health and raise the cost of health care for the American taxpayer.  You must not be obese, not smoke, not ride a bike without a helmet, not eat meat, etc.  Where will it end?

If you have the right to a home, how big of a home?  Why not as big a home as Bill Gates, or the President himself?

Do you see where this is going?

You cannot make owning a commodity a right, for by accepting comforts provided by the State, you will ultimately lose your LIBERTY.

Bill Whittle: Why Don't You Mind My Own Business?

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=player_embedded

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.