Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution

- Cindy Hammond

Each year thousands of people swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and each year millions of people depend on those same people to do just that. There was a day when Duty, Honor and Liberty meant something to each person of the United States of America, and not just on the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. Listed below are the oaths that thousands of people in our military take each year, our Senators and our Representatives every other year, and our President each year. Many of those same people take this oath to heart and are to be commended to it, because they did everything in their power to defend as much of the Constitution as they could, to the best of their ability, including the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

 Presidential oath of office

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

State Representative

“I, (name of Member), 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” 

Senator's Oath of Office

"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."

The Commissioning Oath

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that 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." 

The Enlistment Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." 

These days it's hard to know if the youth of today are gleaning any patriotism from their school, their family, and their church. When I was growing up, each school day in our classroom we stood at our desks with our right hand over our heart, and while facing the flag at the front of the room, we said the Pledge of Allegiance. Now we are seeing the deterioration of our country from within our own government, and also with our citizens, the political climate is hostile, the economy is bleak, and our Commander-In-Chief appears to be siding with the enemies of our country, and his enemies are our country's allies. It's time to put the Pledge of Allegiance back in the schools, complete with the part that mentions God, so that our nation will be truly blessed again. 

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If it weren't for the patriotism of our citizens, our Senators, Representatives, military and our past presidents, this country would not have lasted for 236 years since our Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Constitution has been the rock that provides our country with the stability that it needed to endure wars, depression, and even huge social changes.

Set aside some time each week to read the U.S. Constitution, and even play the Constitution Game "The Constitution Quest"

Oath Keepers Vow To Keep Oath That Obama Breaks

- Daniel Noe

Hundreds of current and former soldiers and police made a pilgrimage to Lexington and Concord, the site of the opening rounds of the U.S. Revolutionary War. to reaffirm their solemn oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…

For original article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/oath-keepers-vow-to-keep-oath-that-obama-breaks/

Napolitano: Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill

- Andrew P. Napolitano

"Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet." -Judge Napolitano

After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.


This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any "informed, high-level official of the U.S. government."

For more of the article go to: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/02/07/napolitano-obama-gives-himself-permission-to-kill/

Assassin In Chief?

- Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson


Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president’s order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.

As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU’s and New York Times‘ requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president’s claim of unilateral powers. While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents “implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men,” she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them. Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written a letter to president Obama asking for “any and all legal opinions” that describe the basis for his claimed authority to “deliberately kill American citizens.”

However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.

On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of “targeted killing” of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.

According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, “an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” Second, capture is “infeasible.” And third, the ” operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles.” Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.

Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts. Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important “‘realities’ of the conflict and the weight of the government’s interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack,” the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council’s Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, “before using lethal force” on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country. How very convenient. The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king’s courtiers.

For more of the article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/assassin-in-chief/

The Episcopal Diocese of NH's Stance on Gun Violence

New Hampshire's Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori issued a statement recently declaring their stance on gun violence and in essence, urging Episcopalian members to abandon their 2nd Amendment rights granted them by the U.S. Constitution to grant the U.S. government more control over already over-regulated, under-enforced firearms purchased.

Stand up for your rights and DO NOT contact your congressperson/representative to ask for more gun control. But DO ask your congressperson/representative to do their part to stand up and uphold their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution as well as working with the appropriate agencies to enforce the laws already passed, and do the background checks according to the existing laws.

Don't give muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama the chance to disarm American citizens and turn regular law-abiding citizens into subjects.

Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire From the Presiding Bishop's Office Media Release The Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs    Presiding Bishop on gun violence: Call today Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on gun violence Call-in on Monday, February 4 UPDATED February 4: Call 1-888-897-0174 [February 1, 2013] Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued the following statement. _____________________________________________________________ The United States has witnessed far too many public shootings in recent months and years. Far too many lives have been cut short or maimed by both random and targeted acts of gun violence. The school shooting in Newtown was horrific, yet since that day several times as many young people have died by gunshot. It is abundantly clear that Americans are ready to grapple with the complexities of gun violence. The Spirit is moving across this land to mobilize people of faith to act. I urge the United States members of this Church to call your federal legislators on Monday 4 February to express your concern and your expectation that gun violence be addressed. The outlines of the necessary policy decisions are clear and widely supported: limits on sales of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, effective background checks for all gun purchases, better access to mental health services, and attention to gun trafficking. We believe all God's people should be able to live in peace, as Zechariah dreams, "old men and women shall again sit in the streets...And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing."  The prophet reminds his hearers that even if this seems impossible, with God it is not. [Zech 8:4-6]  I urge you to add your voice to those clamoring for peace. Call your legislators and sue for peace. The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop and Primate The Episcopal Church

Start immediate investigation of Barack Obama's use of forged IDs and a CT SSN which was never assigned to him according to e-verify 

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution 

This amendment makes congress citizens of the united states again!

Stop the shipment of F16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt

Protect our 2nd Amendment Rights Without Restriction

We the People Demand a Full Scale Investigation into the Eligibility Requirements of President Obama to be President and to run again for a second term.

Petition for Recount on the 2012 Presidential Election

Defund the United Nations, End Agenda 21

WHAT DO OBAMA, REID, BOEHNER NEED MOST?

Now you can give all 3 what they lack in a demonstration of true patriotism

WASHINGTON – First there was WND’s famous “pink slips campaign” in which every member of Congress was put on notice that voting against liberty and responsibility would result in their expulsion from office in November 2010.

Some 9 million pink slips were distributed to all 535 members of the House and Senate – twice causing runs on the nation’s supplies of pink paper and resulting in a sea of pink that would extend across the United States from California to the nation’s capital if laid end to end.

“Apparently that action was too subtle,” said WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah. “Congress didn’t get the message – and continued on with its profligate spending and attacks on freedom.”

But many paid the price in that midterm election.

Then there was the “No More Red Ink” campaign, which is still alive and well – and by the looks of what’s happening in Washington, it will be going for some time. So far, more than 1.5 million red letters have been delivered to Republican House members explaining to them the simple fact that they can say no to any more borrowing – bring to a halt the rising national debt and forcing upon Washington what Republicans always claims they believe in: constitutionally limited government.

Now there’s a dramatic followup plan. WND is offering readers the opportunity to send exquisitely designed and bound copies of the Constitution to Barack Obama and the leaders of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

As you probably know, they badly need them.

For only $9.99, including guaranteed delivery by Fed Ex shipping, you can send to Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid copies of the nation’s founding document so they will have no excuses as to the legal limitations on their power.

An accompanying note will also explain how they have already exceeded their constitutional authority and ask them to distribute the extra copies to their colleagues and staffs. They will be personally addressed to the recipients and will bear your name.

For more of the article go to: http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/what-do-obama-reid-boehner-need-most/#M3RFTtIyhujod25J.99

Army should fire author of report on conservative terrorism

- Bill Wilson

Individuals enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces must swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But what happens when the only crime perpetrated by the “enemy” is supporting and defending the Constitution?

Such is the dilemma facing future military officers at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point — who are being taught to view freedom-loving Americans as violent, racist terrorists-in-waiting. As part of the federal government’s ongoing jihad against common-sense fiscal conservatism and constitutionally limited government, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) has issued a new report making some dangerously irrational generalizations about the “far-right.”

Entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” the West Point report provides a stunningly one-sided demonization of conservative ideology — and simultaneous embrace of “progressive” liberal thought.

Written by Dr. Arie Perliger, director of terrorism studies at the CTC, the report warns of the rising militancy of so-called “anti-federalists” — or Americans who embrace radical notions like “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” In other words, anyone expressing support for the fundamental democratic ideals upon which our nation was founded could be a terrorist.

According to Perliger, these “anti-federalists” are dangerous because they “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.”

Wait — government isn’t corrupt? And warrantless wiretaps, forced participation in a Social Security Ponzi scheme and Barack Obama’s health insurance mandate aren’t intrusions on our liberties?

Of course they are — but apparently exercising one’s First Amendment freedom to speak out against these assaults on liberty is a one-way ticket to a government watch list. However, advocating vociferously in support of these anti-American policies is completely permissible.

For more of the article go to: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/28/army-should-fire-author-of-report-on-conservative-terrorism/

Enemies of the Constitution

- Alan Caruba

Perhaps the stupidest idea given an airing in a recent edition of The New York Times is Prof. Louis Michael Seidman’s opinion, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”

According to his commentary, Prof. Seidman has “taught constitutional law for almost 40 years” and he was “ashamed” it took him that long to conclude that it was an outdated, “bizarre” document.

Apparently President Obama, who was a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, arrived at that conclusion more swiftly. His disregard for the Constitution recently got a slap down from the courts that ruled his recess appointments to the labor relations board were unconstitutional insofar as the Senate was not in recess.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but it should be self-evident that the oldest living constitution in the world has served to create and maintain the greatest republic in the world. Prof. Seidman asserts that Americans have “an obsession” with the Constitution and that is a very good thing indeed. Without it, we would likely have fallen prey to tyranny.

The framers of the Constitution did not spring it on their fellow citizens as a fait accompli, but rather as a new instrument of governance to replace the failed Articles of Confederation. A literate population was able to read the Federal Papers that argued for its various elements. It was submitted to the legislatures of the states for ratification.

We can thank those legislatures for the Bill of Rights because they insisted on amendments that would protect the right of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and other elements that protect the individual against abuses of power that we take for granted, but which exist throughout the world. It can be argued that the Arab Spring that overthrew a number of Middle Eastern despots are a reflection of those rights as understood by citizens in nations that have never enjoyed them.

We tend to forget that many nations even today are ruled by monarchs and others exercising power that denies their citizens any definition of freedom. The Founding Fathers, having fought a long war against the English monarch and his parliament, were particularly sensitive to that, creating an instrument of governance that deliberately created a system of checks and balances to ensure that no President or Congress could act in a manner contrary to the intent of the Constitution.

The Constitution intended to slow down the process of legislation to ensure it received a full debate and was not subject to the whims of the times. In a January 2011 policy analysis published by the Cato Institute, Marcus E. Ethridge noted that “In the wake of the 2010 elections, President Obama declared that voters did not give a mandate to gridlock. His statement reflects over a century of Progressive hostility to the inefficient and slow system of government created by the American Framers,” adding that “A large and growing body of evidence makes it clear that the public interest is most secure when government institutions are inefficient decision makers.”

The most recent example of this was the 2,000-plus page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). At the time, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously said that “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” That’s the opposite of what the Framers had in mind and is an example of what happens when a political party acts in a tyrannical manner. We are already finding out that Obamacare is causing healthcare insurance rates to increase and will deny healthcare to older Americans and others deemed by bureaucrats to be a burden on the system.

Even so, the Supreme Court which is supposed to protect Americans from abuses of the Constitution, deemed Obamacare to be a “tax” and thus legal. The Obama administration had argued that it was not a tax until it got in front of the Court. The Court had long since dropped the ball, allowing the Commerce Clause to be stretched beyond its intent to permit Congress to justify all manner of legislation and regulation of the nation’s economy.

The Framers had to compromise on the issue of slavery, in effect “kicking the can down the street” in order to get assent from the Southern States. The Supreme Court exacerbated this with the Dred Scott decision that ruled that blacks were property no matter where they were. The result was the Civil War.

The argument that the Constitution is an outdated document ignores the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times and remains the gold standard of law in America.

For more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52849

OREGON BAKER FACES STATE INVESTIGATION AFTER REFUSING TO MAKE SAME-SEX COUPLE’S WEDDING CAKE

- Erica Ritz

Another violation of a business owner's rights grantedto every U.S. citizen by the U.S. Constitution. - Freedom First

An Oregon man may have broken the law and is facing a state investigation after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, KATU reports.

KGW has details on the story:

It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.

“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein. “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”

Klein apologized to the women and told them he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages. Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.
“I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God,” said Klein. “A man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife … that to me is the beginning of marriage.”
[...] 

“I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.”

One of the women filed a complaint on January 28– also saying Klein referred to them as “abominations unto the Lord”– and now the Oregon Attorney General’s civil enforcement officers are investigating the claim.

But Klein says he never used harsh language and has no problem with homosexuals; he just doesn’t want to be a part of their marriage.

“I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, [it’s] just something I believe in very strongly,” he told KATU.

When asked whether he’d be willing to lose his business over the matter, Klein said: “If I have to be to, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that’ll be what it is.”

The case now presents a unique legal dilemma, according to reports, since Oregon law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the U.S. Constitution protects Klein’s freedom of religion.

For more of the article go to: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/02/baker-under-investigation-after-declining-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-if-i-have-to-be-penalized-for-my-beliefs-so-be-it/

High School To Collect Students’ Hair For Mandatory Drug Testing

The stripping of our constitutional rights continues even to the hair on our heads. - Freedom First

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (CBS St. Louis) — A Kansas City high school will begin collecting hair from students to conduct mandatory drug tests.

KSHB-TV reports that Rockhurst High School will start the random drug testing during the 2013-14 school year.

“Our point is, if we do encounter a student who has made some bad decisions with drugs or alcohol, we will be able to intervene, get the parents involved, get him help if necessary, and then help him get back on a path of better decision making, healthier choices for his life,” Rockhurst Principal Greg Harkness told KSHB-TV.

The school will collect 60 strands of hair from the student and test for several types of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. If a student comes back with a positive drug test, that student will have 90 days to get drug-free. KSHB-TV reports the file will be destroyed for a student who tests positive after graduation and colleges and universities will never know about the failed test.

Matthew Brocato, the school’s junior class president, told The Kansas City Star that the mandatory drug testing is not to punish students who fail.

“When you hear ‘drug testing,’ you think cops,” Brocato told the Star. “At first you’re taken aback. Is it for the better?” 

Article continues here: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/30/high-school-to-collect-students-hair-for-mandatory-drug-testing/2/

Is It Time To “Reset” The United States Of America?

- Tim Powers

If you look at our Declaration of Independence, a valid argument for a full reset emerges. From the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

As our fundamental rights, given to us by God and protected in the US Constitution, are trampled on daily by such acts as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), strict gun control legislation, controlled free speech zones, forced health care mandates, and a government driving us into a fiscal catastrophe, a full RESET of the US Government is becoming more necessary.

For more of the article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-it-time-to-reset-the-united-states-of-america/

D.C. STATION SHUTS DOWN POLITICAL SPEECH

Airtime purchase refused for 'Come and Take It'- WND

A Washington, D.C., radio station has refused to sell airtime for a political statement from the writer-actor-singer who performed for years as television’s Buck Howdy – deeming it too “controversial.”

“How sad that we live in a time when a message supporting the Constitution is deemed too controversial,” Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, told WND today.

He has recorded a song that defies those advocating gun confiscation with one of the slogans of the Texas Revolution, “Come and take it.”

Vaus said he had attempted to purchase air time on WMAL News/Talk to play his recording, but was rejected.

An email from General Sales Manager Todd Freundlich, forwarded by Vaus, said, “After reviewing the spot with my program director we have determined that it is too controversial for us to air.”

His email continued, “Sorry that we can’t help you with this but if I can answer any additional questions please let me know.”

It doesn’t appear, however, that the bump in the road will stop Vaus.

“Nothing will stop me from getting this message heard in Washington, D.C. If I have to stand in front of the White House and the Capitol Building with a boom box so be it,” Vaus said.

He had requested the prices and information for a one-minute spot, he said.

Steve Vaus

Steve Vaus

WND previously had reported the song, “Come and Take It,” was written to rally gun owners with its remember-the-Alamo-like message.

A music video also was produced with a special message for Barack Obama and members of Congress.

Though the song itself is more vague, the video leaves no doubt who Vaus is talking to in the lyrics.

“Mr. President, members of Congress,” Vaus says in the opening to the video, “you’ve been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. But you might want to review history.

“1835. Gonzales, Texas Territory,” Vaus continues. “The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. You know what the people said? ‘Come and take it.’ Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. So are we.”

The video then launches into the pointed chorus: “Come and take it if you want it. Come and take it if you think you can. Come and take it, but we’ll warn you, you’ll have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.”

For more of the article go to: http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/dc-station-shuts-down-political-speech/#qXlZW5TycKZga3Td.99

‘IT’S DEAD, DEAD, DEAD’: JUSTICE SCALIA BLASTS SCHOOLCHILDREN WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION

- Mytheos Holt

Justice Antonin Scalia’s outspoken advocacy for originalism has on occasion reached controversial heights. Certainly, that may well be the case with his most recent comments, excoriating schoolchildren for misinterpreting the constitution (or, one supposes, for accepting their teachers’ willful misinterpretation):

On Monday, Scalia had a different target for his ire. He complained of schoolchildren who visit the Supreme Court and call the Constitution a “living document.”

“It’s not a living document,” Scalia said, according to the Dallas Morning News. “It’s dead, dead, dead.”

Scalia also suggested on Monday night that his strict interpretation of the Constitution sometimes forces him to write opinions that conflict with his personal beliefs.

This issue – that of the “living constitution” – has been a pet peeve of Scalia’s for a while.

For more of the article go to: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/29/its-dead-dead-dead-justice-scalia-blasts-schoolchildren-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/

Treasonous CBS: 'LET'S GIVE UP ON THE CONSTITUTION'

- Cindy Hammond

Americans have been asked to give our guns, a natural right given to us by God and the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is treasonous to even suggest such a thing. Apparently Professor Seidman is testing the waters to see if the American public is even going to put up with such rhetoric. "President" Obama, a man who somehow made it to the White House as our sitting president without so much as a background check, would be more than happy to hear that his royal subjects, his uninformed voters, would go along with such bizarre and radical tactic. 

"From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

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

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

If a criminal was at your front door trying to break it down, what is the first thing that you would do? Would you open the door and welcome him in? Maybe ask him if he wants a cold drink while he is going through your gun cabinet? I know, bring him a plate of cookies while he rummages through the jewelry cabinet, unashamedly tossing all your finest treasures in a tote bag without even wrapping them carefully. No, wait...I know, let's give him the keys to the front door, so that he can come back and rob you of more treasures after you replace what he took the first time. 

The U.S. Constitution is our security system, the 2nd Amendment is the key to the front door. If we willingly give up the 2nd Amendment, or fail to protect it adequately, the robber will just use the key to the door and enter at will. If we give up the U.S. Constitution entirely, there will be no need for the 2nd Amendment, even if we keep the door locked (keep our guns), the robber will just come in through the window and unlock the door (attack civilians attempting to protect themselves and their country).

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with people like Professor Seidman in mind, and Barack Obama, or whatever his real name is. Not only is it our right to retain the Constitution, but it is our duty to protect and uphold it as steadfastly as we possibly can. You see, there are a number of people who would love to see us give in, and give up the Constitution. Because if you can't disarm the public, you can at least disarm the security system. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't let anyone in my front door who is not welcome.

It's time to stand up, speak out, and hold tight to our United States Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were able to foresee this as a possibility. E Pluribus Unum - Out of many, one. We, the people. The people of the United States. Without the our U.S. Constitution we will be many people, scattered, without a country. 

Letter to Orly Taitz, Esq. From General Charles E. Jones

I ASKED GENERAL CHARLES E. JONES, WHETHER THE REPORTS OF PURGING THE U.S. MILITARY OF ONES UNWILLING TO PASS THE LITMUS TEST OF FIRING ON AMERICANS ARE TRUE. HERE IS HIS ANSWER - Orly Taitz, Esq.

Dear Dr Taitz,

Got my last call on the matter today and no-one knows about this matter
other than what was written in this article. One knowledgeable person added
that probably no will ever know the answer for sure. Although none contacted know
any more than this article, that went viral, most have their own opinions and
don’t put it past a reality. As such people are adopting a heightened awareness
and those with a good overall feel (retired military) for the political crises the
Republic faces have a positive mindset that the military if given the order to fire
on mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grand parents, friends and neighbors
will simply lay down their guns or turn on those giving any UN constitutional orders.
Most know their Constitutional and legal duty not to engage against civilians, foreign or
domestic and the sever consequences if they do. It would be a treasonous mistake
to give an order to the military to go against the Constitution and the Laws. I certainly
would not want to be in the shoes of any politician, elected or appointed, that issued
an order to the contrary because the majority of the military would quickly with deadly
force turn on whoever (civilian or military) was foolish or demented enough to go after Americans with military force for any kind of reason. I’ll also add that most Constitutional
Sheriff’s and Constitutional Governor’s would absolutely not join in such folly.

If by chance anyone who would be foolish enough to plot the takeover of the United States and We The People (the Sovereigns) I suspect it would be their final mistake
simply because enough real American’s have awakened to what is happening and now far out number any and all possible UN-American treason.

Millions are awaiting your meeting with the SCOTUS and the outcome as they feel
that will be the final test to see if there is any hope for those elected and appointed in-
side the District of Columbia to be on the side of the Constitution and the American people. I wish you all the luck in the world to make them understand that their duty is
Constitutional and not political and if anyone can do that it will be you.

Very best regards,
Charles

For original article go to: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=383712

DESPOTISM IN AMERICA

Exclusive: Rick Santorum lists President Obama's constitutional violations  
- Rick Santorum

President Obama’s announcement last week on his plans to make sweeping changes to our nation’s gun laws by presidential executive order is yet another example of his continual disregard for the United States Constitution and the separation of powers it set forth to protect the American people from government by fiat.

Putting aside for a moment the misdirected emphasis on gun ownership, as opposed to mental illness and cultural glorification of violence to curb gun crime, President Obama’s actions represent another attempt to circumvent Congress – a Congress elected by the people but controlled by Republicans – to establish public policy that supports his liberal agenda.

As we all learn early on in grade-school civics class, one of the most important and distinguishing aspects of our government is the system of checks and balances. Our Founding Fathers created a system of divided government, where the power at the federal government is separated among three distinct branches: the legislative (Congress), the executive (the president) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court).

Yet time and time again, when President Obama has met resistance from Congress, the check on his powers in the executive branch, he has found ways to circumvent our system and impose his views and vision.

For more of the article go to: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/despotism-in-america/#gDpJLjRUPgjxkHgs.99

Can An Oath Of Office Be Treason?

- Gerald Todd

In an era where lying has become an art form, is it possible to hold those who take a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution to that pledge of honor and responsibility?

The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution. It reads:

I do solemnly swear 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 will 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.

The military officer’s oath is similar. Solemn oaths are very serious business; an elected or hired official or military officer takes within his or her hands power over the lives and welfare of one person, or 350 million.

The Presidential oath being taken on January 21, 2013 must discern where the officeholder’s heart is and what level of power he lusts for. The same holds true for all who dare make that solemn promise while looking into 350 million pairs of eyes…

For more of the article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/can-an-oath-of-office-be-treason/

The Significance Of The United States Constitution: Then And Now

- Ak Fielding


Degrading the United States Constitution seems to be the latest fad in our country. Most recently, in a debate with author Ben Shapiro, British journalist Piers Morgan attacked the Constitution and called it a “little book.” Morgan lives and works in the United States but is clearly unaware that the United States Constitution is not a “little book” but the supreme law of the land. Morgan is not alone in his berating of the Constitution; the current administration continuously tries to bend the law to its will at every opportunity. The latest attack against the Second Amendment is hardly a response to a new situation but an outcome of years of planning to eradicate the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Ironically, those attacking the Second Amendment unhesitatingly hide behind the First Amendment to cover their disparaging remarks about the same Constitution they despise. For people such as Morgan, clearly unfamiliar with United States history, a short lesson on the Constitution is in order.

For more of the article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-significance-of-the-united-states-constitution-then-and-now/

The Purpose of the Second Amendment

- Erick Erickson

The President is ready to announce his plans to restrict gun ownership. Most likely, nothing the President proposes will do anything to stop a future Sandy Hook. We know the President understands he is putting Democrats in a terrible spot. We know because he did nothing after the Aurora, CO shooting in the midsts of a political campaign. He had to wait so he wouldn’t spook voters.

Now he will put the Democrats on the line. Senators Baucus, Begich, Hagan, Johnson, Landrieu, and Pryor — all Democrats from very pro-second amendment states who are up for re-election in 2014 — will be in jeopardy when, not if, the President overreaches.

In all the talk that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem willing to ignore the actual purpose of the second amendment.

The amendment is not about sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only partly about defending yourself from a criminal.

The second amendment is about ensuring a “free state.”

On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution.

It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh. More so, what they saw as an abridgment of their freedoms in 1775, they viewed as an abridgment of their freedoms going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution.

One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained.

For more of the article go to: http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/15/the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

NH Representative Calls For Limits On Conservatives’ Rights

- Jeff Altiere

Conservatives and Libertarians alike know that they are put down time and time again (occasionally by each other; but soon, we may have a bigger threat to deal with.) To quote Cynthia Chase (D-NH) in the Union Leader newspaper: “In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.” She continued, saying that “One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.” Now, she was referring to the developing Libertarian Free State Project, which is trying to get people to move to New Hampshire.

To say that the people who believe that Government should be small, that spending should be cut, and that people should be finding jobs (so they can get off Entitlement Programs) should have their freedoms limited is ludicrous. The Constitution of the United States guarantees FREE SPEECH (see Article I, Section I), basically saying that people can say what they want, think what they want, and not be infringed upon. What she proposes, though, goes against the Constitution itself. What she calls for, the censorship of Conservative and Libertarian values and arguments, moves to defy one of the freedoms the Founding Fathers and so many others fought and died to attain and defend. Many people have made the ultimate sacrifice over many years
to keep these freedoms alive, and she basically wants to take what they have done and throw it in the trash. She wants to take the freedoms given to us Conservatives and Libertarians, shred them up, and say “you can’t do that”.

For more of the article go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/nh-representative-calls-for-limits-on-conservatives-rights/