‘The Boss’ becomes ‘The Bully’! Since Bruce Springsteen is boycotting North Carolina, NC needs to boycott him!

Springsteen - Cancels Show.jpg

By Diane Rufino, April 9, 2016


Bruce Springsteen cancelled his upcoming show in Greensboro as a protest against the state’s controversial ‘bathroom’ law – HB2. HB2 provides that public bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers assigned separately for Males and for Females can only be used by those individuals who have the correct biological genitalia. A person’s sex is identified on one’s birth certificate. A person who is truly a transgender – which means “crossing from one gender to another – is one who has made certain commitments to making that cross, including having a medical procedure and hormone treatments. Once these “concrete” steps are taken, the person’s birth certificate is changed and then there is no issue about which bathroom the person can rightfully use (and feel comfortable in, as well as the others who use in). Absent any concrete steps towards changing one’s sex, then we just have a gender confused individual.

I am a Jersey Girl and have always been proud of it. I have always considered myself blessed to be born and raised in a state that values education and success, appreciates culture, and enjoys the unity and pride that great Jersey rockers like Bruce Springsteen and John Bon Jovi foster. For most of my life, I have made it a priority to buy every Springsteen album, update every Springsteen playlist, share his music with my new neighbors (North Carolinians), and attend every one of his NC concerts. That loyalty ends today.

It is one thing to make great music and give a great show. There is an implicit bond made made with fans. Great music and great shows earn loyalty which eventually benefit the musician when he no longer can make great music and put out great albums. Fans let certain things slide. But to let fans down because of a personal grudge and a personal campaign is a material breach of that bond and that loyalty. Fans have gone through far worse in their tolerance of Springsteen and in the distance and inconvenience to attend his shows than he has in his tolerance of North Carolina’s HB2.

To be clear, Springsteen lives in California and NOT in North Carolina. Laws that affect his backyard are made by politicians that he has a voice in electing. He needs to respect the backyard that belongs to the people in North Carolina, as they’ve created through THEIR voice and their duly-elected officials.’

And above all else, he needs to respect the loyalty of his fans. My guess is that a good chunk of his fans, including those who WOULD HAVE attended his Greensboro show, think like him and also are offended by HB2.

Now, I wanted to write a more scathing opinion of Springsteen, the bully, but frankly I am swamped with school work and in preparing lessons for my US Government & Politics class. I work hard to prepare lessons that are objective and are fair to both sides of all issues. That is the very least that my students expect and that is what politics is about… the robust education and discussion/debate on issues that determine what government will do for us and what laws should be passed for the best interests of our communities. Luckily, I found a rant that sums up perfectly how I now feel about Springsteen, and I don’t think its author will object to me sharing it.

From Jerseynut.blogspot.com:

I used to really dig Springsteen. The best I’d ever known in Rock, absolutely the best.

On a beautiful day in Los Angeles at the reservoir, many people were walking. Springsteen came toward me and my girl Rona, a cute and savvy Jewish girl from Brentwood. He was walking with his then wife, I think her name was Julia (?). I remember what they were wearing. Shorts, socks, tennis shoes, t-shirts, zippered hoodies, baseball caps and big sunglasses. Springsteen had that shit eatin’ grin on his face…he finally got a half way decent chick. A feeling only another guy would know and understand.

After we passed each other I really felt the urge to “jack that muther fucker”. Reasons: For sellin’ out his music (only sissyboy chumps sell out there music), and for sellin’ out on the United States of America. Springsteens liberal and negative viewpoints on this country bruised the image of the only true Promised Land. The land of the United States of America. The land and everything that the Pilgrims gave up just to gain so little for their personal selves. Freedom…you can’t hold it in your hands…you can only hold it in your heart…

Springsteen is now just an old piece of shit with money, a past, and disrespect for his wife. When you take a vow and you take a wife, you make a covenant with God. With God and Country, you may not sell out. God is too powerful and country is too cherished. Springsteen for me is now dead…


BOYCOTTS GO BOTH WAYS. I HOPE THE GOOD FOLKS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES WILL BOYCOTT SPRINGSTEEN… the man who used to be called “The Boss.” Now he’s just a bully. How he’s just another elitist who uses his celebrity to be a social and political Bully when others don’t think like he does.

Is that Springsteen giving us the finger? (see pic below)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Open Letter to NC Governor Pat McCrory thanking him for his Support and Defense of HB2 (“Public Facilities Privacy & Safety Act”)

Pat McCrory

by  Diane Rufino

Governor Pat McCrory
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Dear Governor McCrory,

I am writing with a heartfelt THANK YOU for standing for common sense, standing for the constitutional protections of privacy, and perhaps most of all, for standing with conviction and exemplifying the courage one rarely sees in a politician these days. I am, of course, referring to your readiness and willingness to address the bathroom ordinance passed by the Charlotte legislature and pass HB2.

I know you and the entire state of North Carolina is coming under attack from the liberals for your stance in this matter. I know that the mayor of San Francisco, Edwin Lee, has banned flights for city employees from SF to North Carolina in protest, as did the mayors of NYC and Seattle. I know that New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has also banned non-essential flights to North Carolina for state employees in protest over the bill. And Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy have done the same. I know that director Rob Reiner has called for a boycott among filmmakers not to film in our state until HB2 is repealed. Wow, the wave of intolerance is strong. But waves that crash on rock do no damage and cause no erosion.

The point is that none of these individuals live in our state and how dare they try to engage in coercion to change our laws and policies. Decisions that affect the day-to-day conditions of our lives here in our own state should rightfully be made by us who live here, and by our representatives. And other states ought to respect those decisions. It’s one of the hallmarks of a federation of sovereign states. Let’s not forget that in 1973, when California legalized marijuana, North Carolina didn’t issue any boycotts in protest. In fact, there were no boycotts at all issued by states who did not agree with California’s decision. North Carolina and other states respected California’s right. And recently when California enacted an extreme gun control law, again North Carolina stood silent. North Carolina, a state that has a deep respect and affection for our Bill of Rights and especially for the big daddy of them all, the second amendment, could have easily acted in protest.

I know that our state Attorney General, Roy Cooper, an avowed liberal who believes strongly in gay marriage, not only refused to enforce the state constitutional amendment that passed overwhelmingly in our state defining marriage as between a man and a woman but now refuses to enforce HB2. He has publicly called our state an “embarrassment.” The truth is that HE, a man elected as Attorney General to defend the laws of the state who has not done so, taking an oath to perform the duties of that office yet violating it over and over again, taking a paycheck while he has essentially done nothing in performance of the duties of his office, and then turning his back on the great majority of the North Carolinians is the real definition of an embarrassment. Roy Cooper is an embarrassment to the state and to the government of this state. Why is this man still in office and why does he continue to collect a paycheck? Where are the articles of impeachment to remove him and give us a vacant office (pretty much what it is with him IN IT). The people of the state are entitled to a public servant that carries out his or her function. Governor McCrory, you were right when you said that Mr. Roy Cooper was elected to do a job and that “he is an attorney first and a politician second.”

Hypocritically, Cooper and his kind want to force OTHER officials into doing their job – such as issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, despite political and religious differences – but as for themselves, they believe they can refuse to carry out their elected responsibilities for the same reasons.

The bottom line is that the people expect their laws to be defended and someone will need to take this one on, with all the energy, sincerity, legal know-how, and passion that it takes.

We face an uphill battle in trying to remain a normal state with normal, natural-law values and trying to fight off the degenerate policies of liberals and progressives (and the LGBT community) who would love to see the entire country become like the biblical dens of iniquity, Sodom and Gomorrah. Biological confusion, biological rejection, massive sexual experimentation, and the unfettered personal freedom to live life as one sees fit without regard to boundaries, natural or social…. These are the goals of the progressives and liberals. By-products of such lifestyles are just collateral damage that we must all live with. But certain things are worth fighting for because the society that results is the one that will prove most successful.

The condemnation and the protests….. these will pass. If we don’t start standing up issue by issue, then North Carolina becomes no better than places like San Francisco and New York City, and neither place provides the safety and comfort needed to encourage and embrace family values and all the wonderful things that come with the proper focus on the family. Governor McCrory, you are doing a wonderful job in sticking up for HB2 and explaining it truthfully and fairly. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest is also doing an outstanding job defending it.

You mentioned that other states and some politicians are calling our state an embarrassment. I contend that when such states and when such politicians attack our policies, then we should be consoled in the fact that we are doing the right thing. North Carolina is NOT California. North Carolina is NOT New York. North Carolina is NOT Vermont. North Carolina is NOT Washington. North Carolinians have different values than San Franciscans. North Carolinians have different values than New Yorkers. There are communities of people all across this country defined by the values they embrace and wish to live by. And they are entitled to live by, as long as they don’t discriminate in violation of the long-settled principles solidified in our Constitution. How have we as a body of people been allowed to tolerate bathroom facilities separating on account of biological gender differences all these great many years? Clearly there have been no constitutional violations. A one-size-fits-all society is not what we want in this country. We want differences so that people, as diverse as we are, can find the place – using our constitutionally protected ability to be mobile – that allows us to live as faithfully and as comfortably with respect to our values. People forced to live in a changing environment where they must hide their values, apologize for them, be ashamed of them, and worse, live in contradiction to them are people ripe for discontent and hatred. A state that respects the values embraced by nature, that stands up for the values that promote wholesome family and gender values, a state respects the voice of the majority of its people (so that the minority cannot force their demands on others who are not ready for them), that refuses to engage in the type of cultural transformation of places like San Francisco and others that put individuality and selfishness before proper guidelines, embedded in natural law, for the good of society and its bedrock foundation, and that does not back down from the bullies of this country…… is NOT an embarrassment. It is an example.

As an attorney, I agree with your assessment of HB2. It is a common-sense bill that invokes no constitutional protection for the groups that are attacking it. The bill protects men, women, and children when they use restrooms, lockers, and showers. Individuals have a basic expectation of privacy in these areas. In fact, I would argue that there is a heightened expectation of privacy in these areas. Individuals have a right not to feel uncomfortable, traumatized, nervous, or scared when they enter a bathroom for biological purposes. They have a right to feel protected when they shed their clothing in locker rooms and in shower areas. The bill protects the elderly and the young who are most vulnerable to intimidation and fear. They are the ones who most assuredly need protection. Governor, you are correct when you say that this right must be protected and secured. If the very governing body of a state cannot protect a child or a grandmother in an area traditionally set aside for only members of society biologically identical to them, sharing similar concerns, functions, and risks, then that governing body should dissolve in favor of one that is able to protect its citizens.

A doctor who operates on a male (regardless of his “identification”) will need certain operating implements and gadgets to do the job. Just because that person may “identify” as another gender does not somehow change the reality that physically there are differences that require separate attention.

HB2 requires that requires that public bathrooms or changing facilities (locker rooms and/or showers) to be designated for and only those persons based on their biological sex; that is, the sex identified on their birth certificate. This bill only reasserts the status quo. It makes sure that the current situation – the one that has existed for over one hundred years – continues to remain as such. Without this bill and having the possibility of other cities and towns adopting the radical plan put forth by the Charlotte legislature, would expose the overwhelming majority of people to traumatization in an area that they should feel most comfortable.

Last year started a movement to demonize the Confederate flag and in fact, all symbols and names that are associated with the antebellum South and the Civil War. [I’m referring to the movement that was independent of the flag’s removal from the state capitol in SC]. All of a sudden, the flag and all such symbols, monuments, historical figures, street names, etc were deemed to only have ONE meaning, and that meaning was one of hatred. I watched and read time after time as a mayor or town official, or college student, or African-American citizen cried “trauma” and “discomfort” at having to lay his or her eyes on the flag, a monument, a street sign, a building name, etc etc. I imagined them convulsing, vomiting, and having to be hospitalized with live-giving fluids delivered to their failing veins. But no, they were healthy as can be. They were just exercising a misguided freedom to personally feel shielded from a message they didn’t care to see. Now, most of these individuals, of course (and clearly) have no clue about history. But governing body after governing body gave in. The right of one person not to be traumatized was treated as paramount to the overwhelming majority of people to embrace or be reminded of the history of our country.

I see this as an analogy, to some degree. We must respect the right of biologically-oriented people NOT to feel traumatized when they use a public restroom, locker room, or shower. This is simply common sense. Imagine the trauma and confusion that a young child will suffer? A young girl is taught not to talk to a stranger that is of a different sex. A young girl is taught that there are differences between herself and someone like her daddy. We teach our children about the proper roles they are to assume in the school system (because, after all, a boy who dares put his arm around a girl simply to show affection can be sent home with a charge of assault) and the role that gender plays in society and in rightful expectations. What about the parent who is trying to teach her child about biology and nature and the natural order of life? How can a child reconcile what she NEEDS to learn (for her safety and protection) with what she might confront in a public bathroom? What about the trauma a grandmother will feel? The fear as well?

There are reports all over the internet of assaults, rapes, videoing, and uncomfortable situations when men “pretending” to be gender-confused go into a women’s bathroom. All one needs to do is simply research them. It is far too easy for a male to pretend to be gender-confused to gain entry into a woman’s bathroom in order to do something that is less than legitimate or legal. He can film what he sees (and there are very secret ways to do that) or he can force himself on unsuspecting females. He can also rob them because they have let their guard down or because they are temporarily away from their purse, their mace, and their purchases. [Jay Delancy of the Voter Integrity Project, has posted several of these incidents, for example]. The only conceivable scenario where a male should be allowed to enter a women’s restroom, locker room, and shower is when he has been surgically altered and is on hormone therapy to officially change his gender. That is the only REAL way to “identify” as a woman. That would provide the only reasonable confidence to show that the person identifies as a woman and that the associated intent is there.

Finally, should bathrooms become open to individuals of a different biological identity, I believe patrons will not want to use the restroom lest they be made to feel uncomfortable. I have been in a public bathroom in a mall that was marked “Ladies” and watched as a male emerged from one of the stalls. There was nothing about the individual to comfort the women and teen girls in the bathroom that he/she was “identifying” as a female. All we knew was that he was a male, looked like a male, was zipping up his pants as he walked out of the stall, and he was in the women’s room. It was unsettling and my daughters and I immediately left. We felt uncomfortable and uneasy. We should have never been put in that situation. We opted to leave the mall and go somewhere else to get a bite to eat so that we could eventually take care of nature (take care of business) in a more private setting. I believe patrons will wait to go home to use the restroom and they will use the food court areas less frequently so as not to have to use the restrooms. Hence, their time in malls, etc will be shortened. Eventually, with policies as the LGBT desire and as the progressives and liberals who support the Charlotte initiative desire, people will begin retreating into their own homes or the homes and meeting places of people they feel comfortable with and reverse discrimination will tacitly result. Such policies will have a disparate impact on those who believe in a rightful expectation of privacy and who believe that nature, after all, is the immutable basis for life.

In addition to the provisions related to public/education bathroom, locker, and shower facilities, I want to thank you for the provisions added to the bill which protect business owners/government sub-contractors from the coercion of local laws which they ordinarily would not have to be subject to. The pre-emption provisions – pre-emption from – the pre-emption of local laws that expand the categories of non-discrimination to “sexual orientation” – are the icing on the wonderful cake that is HB2. I truly believe you showed your commitment and respect to the business community by: (1) recognizing and emphasizing that HB2 does not affect them and they are free to handle the bathroom situation as they see fit; and (2) making sure they are not subject to local laws that force them to participate in speech with which they do not believe (which underscores the rights recognized in the First Amendment – speech, religion, conscience). The guarantees protected under the First Amendment are firmly-rooted in our history and in our collective conscious and government law (including state) must not force businesses, small or large, or sole proprietors to participate in events or promote an agenda which violate their deeply-held beliefs and their collective conscience. Such a law is a dangerous violation of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion and they certainly threaten businesses just as acutely as issues such as discrimination and the failure to provide bathroom accessibility to transgenders. Even more telling is what such a law says about our treasured freedoms. It sends a message to the world that we aren’t the nation that we claim to be. Hypocrisy may work for others but it shouldn’t be an accusation that attaches to the state of North Carolina.

Thank you again in joining with the NC General Assembly and standing together in a courageous moment of clarity and allegiance to the good people of the state and signing HB2 into law. This mother, parent, attorney, school teacher, and someday soon – grandmother wanted to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and respect. Please, please, please continue to stand firm in the wake of the growing opposition and demonization of our state with respect to HB2.

Most Sincerely,

Language of Bill — http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf (“Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act”)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjyHBZTkGZA (In this video, Governor Pat McCrory explains and supports HB2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOjfj82ymE (In  his video, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest clarifies the mistruths about HB2 to the commentators on CNBC.  He then expresses his support and defends why the bill needed to be passed)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Without Easter

EASTER - tomb

by  Diane Rufino

Have you ever thought of what it would be like if Jesus hadn’t been born, hadn’t assembled a group of loyal disciples and followers, hadn’t taught his lessons of love and forgiveness and charity, hadn’t been executed on the cross, and hadn’t risen? When he traveled and taught, he was the Son of Man. He belonged to the People, as their teacher. But when he rose from the dead, he was the Son of God. He was the new and everlasting covenant with the Father, forever and ever.

Without Easter, we would have no hope of heaven. We would have no hope of sharing in God’s kingdom. We could only hope for a righteous and blessed life here on Earth, for whatever that life and fate happens to deal us.

Without the hope of heaven, there would be no repentance, no personal transformation, no inherent obligation to love and help one another, and no attempt to follow biblical principles. We would miss out on the true meaning of life which is the love and fullness that other human beings bring to our existence.

Without Easter, we would lose our way in this world of sin, temptation, chaos, and darkness. Jesus’ death and resurrection. One mistake, one moment of weakness, would condemn us to eternal damnation and a permanent separation from God our Father. Feeling that permanent separation would send us on a downward spiral, for we would believe our Father had already condemned and turned His back on us. Believing that he have lost His love would strip away our moral compass.

But because of Easter, we can be reborn. We have a reason to live better, to do better, to love stronger, and to reflect His shining light into the shadows and minimize the darkness. We can live the life that God intended — as humble witnesses to his love. We can do all these things because even though we are sinners by nature, immersed in an increasingly sinful and tempting world, we are forgiven of our misdeeds because God wants the relationship to continue and to flourish. A person can’t help but be humbled by a love that is so great and unconditional.

Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice not only that we who believe will have an eternal relationship with God but also that we may be encouraged to live our lives to the fullest – to be better, to do better, and to love stronger. Remember, in Jesus’ eyes, ALL LIVES MATTER !

HAPPY EASTER, Everyone. May you feel the love today and every day.

EASTER - Jesus (from THE BIBLE movie

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Esteemed Ghosts From Our Past

LIBERTY - Sweet Land of Liberty

by Diane Rufino

If you are ever confused as to the order of things, the emphasis of individual rights with respect to government, the rights of States with respect to the federal government, and the states’ rights of nullification and disunion with respect to the government’s position, it helps to refresh oneself with the wisdom of the men who wrote our Founding documents and provided us with the bedrock on which our nation was established and grounded.

James Madison (the principle author of our Constitution) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (the author of our Declaration of Independence) that the Constitution was subordinate to the Principles and Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.” In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”

Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.

Similarly, the government as a political institution primarily tasked to protect the essential liberties of the people is the only grounds for allegiance by the people. Once that purpose becomes frustrated, abused, diluted, or convoluted, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government.

Leftists and progressives refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, as we have seen in the debates over gun control. Leftists like Barack Obama do not believe that individuals have the inherent right to own guns. In other words, they don’t believe in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, if they don’t believe in the Second Amendment, then they fundamentally do not understand the Bill of Rights and the role of government. Rather, they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living breathing constitution” (“living breathing document”) – one which is subject to an at-will interpretation, and most conveniently, to the interpretation of the very government that the Constitution seeks to limit. A living, breathing constitution” is one that has no fixed meaning and therefore individual rights are subject to executive and legislative encroachment whenever it suits the government’s agenda. A “living breathing constitution” is one that can be judicially amendment by diktat, instead of its legally prescribed method of amendment in Article V. This enables them to undermine the Constitution’s fundamental protections of Human Rights and to transform government into whatever suits them.

Likewise, even though our Founding Fathers and indeed the drafters of our Declaration and Constitution acknowledged that the states have a right to check the power of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on its sovereign powers and they have the right to voluntarily leave the union, and these rights supercede the Constitution, the federal government, through the voice of Presidents and the men (ie, puppets) they appoint to the Supreme Court, has attempted to deny that these rights do not exist. [seeTexas v. White (1868, decision written by Lincoln’s appointee as Chief Justice, his former cabinet member and right-hand man, Salmon Chase) and Cooper v. Aaron (1958)]

At North Carolina’s first Ratifying Convention in Hillsborough in July-August 1788, attorney James Iredell explained the status of the Constitution: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In other words, if a law is passed by the US Congress that exceeds the authority granted at the time (1787-1788), that law is null and void and therefore is no law at all. The States must not enforce it. At that Hillsborough Convention, the NC delegates voted 184-84 not to adopt the Constitution. The anti-Federalist majority concurred with delegate William Gowdy of Guilford County, when he remarked: “Power belongs originally to the people, but if rulers be not well guarded, that power may be usurped from them.” It should be noted that the Hillsborough Convention is perhaps the most insightful convention regarding the original intent of the Constitution. The transcriber of the debates in that Convention was non-partisan.

Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote The Federalist Papers, the series of essays assuring the States that the government created under the Constitution is one of very limited powers, wrote: “The Supreme Being gave existence to man …; and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety … Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to- such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter: for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite; or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust; is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.”

Although Presidents and Congressmen and justices (and all other government officials as well) swear a solemn oath to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution (with some taking the oath on the Koran, a document that demands allegiance to a system that must ignore the Constitution), most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled on the notion established by the Constitution – The Rule of Law – with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.

The debate between right and left, of progressives/liberals and conservatives, characterizes all fundamental historical debates regarding Liberty and tyranny and begs the core question: Who endows the Rights of Man? — God (as ordained in natural law) or government (as ordained by man)?

The Left’s position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.” He intentionally compares himself to Abraham Lincoln for a reason. Lincoln himself ignored the intent and the letter of the Constitution perhaps more than any other president and enlarged government in a way that no Founder could have envisioned (although Hamilton had hoped, and maybe even Madison too for just a brief period in time).

“Obama and other contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under the Rule of Law established by our Constitution, with the rule of men in their so-called ‘living breathing constitution.’ They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately ‘endowed by our Creator,’ while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of Liberty. Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the Rights of Man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such Rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, ‘The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.’” [Mark Alexander, “The Inalienable Rights of Man”]

[These comments are based, in large part, on an article by Mark Alexander – See Mark Alexander, “The Inalienable Rights of Man: A Brief Civics Lesson on Liberty,”The Patriot Post, February 18, 2015. Referenced at: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/33261 ]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Impending Federal Gun Control Laws or Confiscation: States Don’t Fail Us Now!

NULLIFICATION - Gun Control (Clint Eastwood)

by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2015

Obama Wants our Guns and It’s Time for the States to Make Clear: “We Will Not Comply…. We Will Nullify!”

Obama appears to be intent on burdening the second amendment – a fundamental and essential right of a free people.

The States need to decide where they stand: Either they will protect its people or the country is exactly what Abraham Lincoln envisioned – a country where the states are irrelevant and the federal government reigns absolutely supreme.

The States (and the local sheriffs) are the last line of defense between a rogue federal government and the People. The federal government appears to become more unhinged from the Constitution with each passing day and this should scare everyone. The need to erect lines of protection becomes ever more urgent. And this is where the States and sheriffs need to step in. They need to make clear that they will NULLIFY and INTERPOSE should the federal government attempt to infringe the right of the people to have and bear arms. We know what will be right around the corner should that happen… We only need to look at what happened to the unfortunate people of totalitarian regimes whose leaders confiscated guns. In this country, Patrick Henry explained it better than anyone else. A people who can’t defend themselves cannot assert their rights against the government and are therefore doomed to surrender them.

In 1775, after the British Crown and Parliament set out to punish the colonies for their “rebellious spirit” in frustrating its taxation schemes and its conduct in tossing tea overboard in Boston Harbor in protest of the monopoly established by the Tea Act by imposing the series of laws known as the Coercive Acts (unaffectionately referred to as the “Intolerable Acts” by the colonists), the colonies sought to appeal King George III to interpose on their behalf and end the arbitrary and oppressive treatment of them.

In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to address the colonies’ collective response to the Intolerable Acts. On October 25, it drafted a respectful response to the King, which would be known as the “Declarations and Resolves” and delegates were then dispatched to present them to him in person. Despite the anger that the colonies felt towards Great Britain after Parliament enacted the Coercive Acts, our first Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies; in particular, it asked that the Acts be repealed. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undo oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. King George would ignore the Declarations and Resolves and rather, he would use them to mock the colonies. He laughed, claiming that while they publicly pledged their loyalty to him, they were probably preparing for armed revolution. He found them ingenuous and not very clever.

[Approximately eight months after the Declarations were presented to King George and without any response, on July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution entitled “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” On October 27, 1775 that King George appeared before both houses of the Parliament to address his concern about the increased rebellious nature of the colonies. He described the colonies as being in a state of rebellion, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies. With that, he gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects – the very people who looked to him for respect and protection].

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry attended a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention, with a very important issue he intended to address. It would be the second convention held after the Royal Governor of Virginia dissolved the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses, for its solidarity with Massachusetts (after Parliament closed the port of Boston as punishment for the Boston Tea Party). The House of Burgesses would continue to meet, albeit in secret, but would operate in convention (These would serve as Virginia’s revolutionary provisional government).

While he knew the King had ignored the respectful petition by the First Continental Congress and had continued to treat them without the reserved rights afforded all English subjects, Henry could not know for sure that he would authorize military action against them. But he certainly saw it coming.

As tensions were mounting between Great Britain and the colonies, the Second Virginia Convention convened in secret at St. John’s Church in Richmond to discuss the Old Dominion’s strategy in negotiating with the Crown. The roughly 120 delegates who filed into Richmond’s St. John’s Church were a veritable “Who’s Who” of Virginia’s colonial leaders – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, a well-respected lawyer and orator. Henry had long held a reputation as one of Virginia’s most vocal opponents of England’s oppressive taxation schemes. During the Stamp Act controversy in 1765, he bordered on treasonous activity when he delivered a speech in which he hinted that King George risked meeting the same fate as Julius Caesar if he maintained his oppressive policies. As a recent delegate to the Continental Congress, he resounded Ben Franklin’s call for colonial solidarity by proclaiming, “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian; I am an American.”

Henry was convinced that war was around the corner. And he arrived at the Virginia Convention determined to persuade his fellow delegates to adopt a defensive stance against Great Britain. On that fateful evening of March 23, he put forward a resolution proposing that Virginia’s counties raise militiamen “to secure our inestimable rights and liberties, from those further violations with which they are threatened.” The suggestion of forming a colonial militia was not shocking in itself. After all, other colonies had already passed similar resolutions and had begun forming militias. And Henry himself had already taken it upon himself to raise a volunteer outfit in his home county of Hanover. Nevertheless, his proposal was not met with the approval he had hoped for. Many in the audience were skeptical at approving any measure that might be viewed as combative. Britain, after all, was the strongest military power in the world. They still held out hope for a peaceful reconciliation.

After several delegates had spoken on the issue, Patrick Henry rose from his seat in the third pew and took the floor. A Baptist minister who was present that evening would later describe him as having “an unearthly fire burning in his eye.” Just what happened next has long been a subject of debate. Henry spoke without notes, and no transcripts of his exact words have survived to today. The only known version of his remarks was reconstructed in the early 1800s by William Wirt, a biographer who corresponded with several men that attended the Convention. According to this version, Henry began by stating his intention to “speak forth my sentiments freely” before launching into an eloquent warning against appeasing the Crown.

I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak and unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us……. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Less than a month later, shots would be fired at Lexington and Concord. The war that Henry saw coming had finally begun.

Patrick Henry had the intuition to understand that a leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant” cannot be trusted to allow his people to enjoy the freedom that they petition for. And when push comes to shove, the more they demand it, the more oppressive his response would be. And thus, since that leader, King George III, was considered to be unfit to be the ruler of a free people, in the mind of Patrick Henry, if he indeed decided to use force to subjugate the people of Virginia should be prepared with a force of their own to defend their liberty. Henry would later refer to Liberty as “that precious gem.”

A leader “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Americans still consider themselves a free people. And Americans still want to believe their government believes in their right to be so. But the one problem is that most Americans believe their “government” to be the federal government. A people who understand the foundations and underpinnings of liberty and freedom know that the federal government is not their government but rather their state government is their government. The federal government primarily serves the states, or at least, it was intended that way. Yet for limited objects, expressly defined in Article I, Section 8, its legislation can touch the people.

It is the state government, and not the federal government, that can protect an individual’s inalienable liberties. Which government in recent years has shown disregard for the fundamental rights of the People – federal or state? Which government has enacted the largest tax increase in our nation’s history? Which government has denied people the fundamental right to manage their healthcare? Which government has ignored immigration laws and attempted to fundamentally change the character of the nation illegally? Which government has demanded that marriage laws (based on natural criteria in place for thousands of years) be fundamentally altered? And which government has poised itself for years now to restrain the people in their right to have and bear arms? Again, a government “whose character is thus marked by every act which defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The American states, after fighting and winning a costly war for their independence, had to decide on the best form of government to embrace the values they proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. They asserted the same rights that the British held dear and which they fought to defend, spanning hundreds of years, but their task was to secure them more firmly so that their posterity – “millions yet unborn and generations to come” (from the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus I) – would enjoy the same degree of freedom. They didn’t want Americans to endure the same tortured history as the British, who enjoyed freedom under benevolent kings but oppression and even death under tyrants. Freedom, according to Thomas Jefferson, including as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, was the right to be free from an aggressive or oppressive government. To that end, the government established by the Constitution of 1787, with powers limited in DC and balanced by the bulk of powers retained by the states, with its separation of powers and elaborate system of checks and balances, with its week judicial branch, and with a Bill of Rights, was believed to provide the best system to preserve the rights they fought for. Furthermore, in America, rights are understood to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. In Britain, on the other hand, rights are those generously granted by government. Rights were only those limitations on government that Kings recognized by a signature on a charter.

The US Bill of Rights, modeled after the English Bill of Rights of 1689, exists to protect the individual against the government. Included in our Bill of Rights are the rights to be free from a national religion, the right to the free exercise of one’s religion and the rights of conscience. It includes the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right to a free press, the right to petition the government, the right to have and bear arms, the right to be free in one’s home, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury trial, various rights of a person accused of a crime, the right not to have one’s property arbitrarily confiscated by the government, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and others.

The second amendment is currently under unrelenting attack by our current administration, with Obama leading the charge. Just two days ago, he spoke not only about the need for gun control but hinted about possible confiscation. When Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that the United States consider following the path taken by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted complete bans on firearm possession. And Obama referenced those bans: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

What Obama didn’t clarify is that Australia has no constitution nor does it have a Bill of Rights. The rights of the people are not absolute. Great Britain, which also does not have a constitution, per se, does protect gun rights to some degree in its Bill of Rights of 1689. That document allowed for Protestant citizenry to “have Arms for their Defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law,” and restricted the right of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants’ right to bear arms “when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law.” It also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament and not of the monarch. Thus, the right was not absolute and it was clearly articulated as such. In fact, Sir William Blackstone wrote in his Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” but subject to suitability and allowance by law.

As Mark Levin explained: “The second amendment isn’t in the Bill of Rights to protect you in your hunting rights. The second amendment isn’t there to protect you in your sports-shooting rights. The second amendment was added to the Constitution to protect you against a centralized government. The militia part of the second amendment underscores this point. The point is that the states can maintain militias to protect the states from an oppressive tyrannical central government. I don’t mean to be provocative, but that’s just history. That’s why we have the second amendment.”

What is that history? Our Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile. The second amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” When the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant that militias needed to be well-regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. It was merely common sense. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to have and bear arms is the right which secures all other rights. The First Amendment protects the other rights by permitting the speech and the expression, and the assembly and the petition and the use of the press to call out the government when it tramples on those rights, but the Second Amendment, with its force, is able to secure them, should the government ignore the former. In other words, when the First Amendment fails, the Second is there to preserve and secure the people in their liberty.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses the States’ intention in demanding a Bill of Rights as a condition to ratification. It reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, which shall extend the ground of public confidence in the Government, and will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution” According to the Preamble, the federal government is PROHIBITED from even contemplating the issue of abridging the rights guaranteed in the second amendment. The liberty rights contained in the Bill of Rights demand an ABSOLUTE BAN by the federal government action in those areas. Being that the Supreme Court has been in the business of enlarging the rights contained in those amendments (ie, privacy rights, for example, rights of criminals), we can assume that our right to have and bear arms is similarly enlarged.

Although the Bill of Rights was adopted after the Constitution was ratified, it was the absolute assurance by James Madison that he would draft a Bill of Rights and have it submitted and adopted by the First US Congress (June 8, 1788) that convinced several skeptical, and important, states to finally ratify. In other words, BUT FOR the fact that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution to further protect the rights of the People and the States, the Constitution would never have been adopted and the Union, as we know it, would not have been formed. After the delegates concluded their convention in Philadelphia in September 1787, it was clear that the Constitution that had been written was not very popular (particularly with the anti-Federalists). Some very important delegates refused to even sign it and some promised to do all they could to prevent its ratification by the states. Edmund Randolph and George Mason (both of VA), Elbridge Gerry (of MA), John Lansing and Robert Yates (both of NY), and Martin Luther (of DE) all refused to sign because of a lack of Bill of Rights and a deep concern that the government created would endanger the rights of the States. Yates would go on to write some of the strongest anti-Federalist essays, under the pen name Brutus, and fellow New Yorker, Governor George Clinton, would write some as well (under the name Cato). Two of our most important Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, although asked to be delegates to the Convention, declined because they were suspicious of those running the Convention (namely Madison, whom they suspected to have ambitious plans for the meeting). They believed a government stronger than the Articles would compromise the sovereignty of the States.

Indeed, it was unclear whether the Constitution would be ratified by the States. The Constitution was in deep trouble in the conventions of four states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. They were some of the biggest states. The first three were the most important and influential of the States. Without the guarantee of a Bill of Rights, those states were not going to ratify. The formation of a “more perfect union” appeared to be in jeopardy. Even with the guarantee, the votes for ratification were by a fairly slim margin. North Carolina had rejected the Constitution outright. It was not until a Bill of Rights was added that it called another ratifying convention to take another vote.

Does anyone believe that a constitution that expressly created a government as large, bloated, concentrated, oppressive, arrogant, monopolistic, and corrupt as the one in existence today would have been drafted and produced by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Does anyone believe that the delegates in attendance at that convention, the great leaders of our founding generation, knowing their concerns to respect the spirit of the Revolution and to protect their state sovereignty (and yield as little sovereign power as possible), would have drafted and signed such a document? And even if such a document would have been produced at the Convention, does anyone believe a single State would have ratified it and surrendered essentially all of its sovereignty? NO WAY !! There is no way that Virginia or New York or Massachusetts or North Carolina would have ratified it. NO WAY! None of them would have ratified it.

And yet we’ve allowed the government – what it’s become – to assert, unchallenged, that whatever it does and says is the supreme law of the land. Tyranny is defined as the action of an unjust and oppressive government. For a country that defines the boundaries of government on its people through a written constitution, tyranny occurs when unconstitutional laws are forced – enforced – on the people. After all, when a government assumes powers not delegated to it, it naturally has to usurp them from their rightful depository, which in the case of the United States is the States and the People.

Our government – all three branches – continue to act to mock individual liberty and states’ rights. Certainly our president does so at every given opportunity. Our government – all three branches – continues to act to ignore and frustrate the will of the People even though a democracy is their birthright. As Daniel Webster once wrote: “It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.” (note that this quote is the forerunner to Lincoln’s famous line in the Gettysburg Address).

The federal government, which was conceived as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” unfortunately now only rests on two of those legs. In has failed for many years now to be a government “for the people.”

Enough is enough.

Gun Rights mark a line in the sand. That line represents a tolerance of government that absolutely cannot be crossed. If government should attempt gun control that burdens or attempt confiscation, the line will have been crossed. The Supreme Court WOULD HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY STRIKE THAT ACTION DOWN. Hell, the Supreme Court has held over and over again that any action by government that should happen to burden even ever so lightly a woman’s right to have an abortion cannot be tolerated. And an abortion actually and absolutely KILLS another human being – an innocent and helpless one. The right to an abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and certainly NOT in the Bill of Rights. The right to have and bear arms is. It is addressed plainly and without condition or pre-condition in the second amendment. By applying the same rational as the Court uses to ensure women their unfettered right and access to an abortion, the government MUST NOT in any way, shape, or form burden an individual’s right to have and bear arms. The right to bear arms is rooted in the natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation. The right to have an abortion is rooted in the selfish goal of convenience.

When the government crosses that line, the Declaration of Independence tells us what the Peoples’ rights are, under the theory of social compact (which the US Constitution is):

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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Should the government attempt to burden or deny the American people of their gun rights, our natural right of self-defense (even from our own government) and self-preservation (to live free, as our Creator endowed us and as nature intended) allows us to dissolve our government – that is absolve us from allegiance to it – and establish a new government that is dedicated to the protection of our God-given liberties. Personally, I believe the Constitution is perfect; it just needs verbage that makes it absolutely clear that its very terms are its limitations, there are no elastic clauses or implied powers, there is no independent legislative power attached to the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper clauses, no object expressly delegated to the legislative branch is allowed to be delegated to an un-elected group of people, Congress is expressly forbidden to tax and spend for any reason other than what is listed expressly in Article I Section 8, a provision should be included to give the states the power to audit the spending budget of the government for strict constitutionality, a provision should be added to require Congress to balance its budget every year, the Supreme Court can only offer an opinion which is subject to an appeal to the State courts, the “Wall of Separation” is removed from federal court jurisprudence, the president’s powers must be severely limited by additional language in the Constitution, presidents will no longer be allowed to issue executive orders, the bar for impeachment of a president will be lowered and in certain cases Congress MUST issue articles of impeachment and seek to remove him, consequences will be provided for in the Constitution for representatives and officials who violate their oath of office, the 14th amendment must be clarified as not intending to include the incorporation doctrine (so that the Bill of Rights once again only applies to the actions of the federal government), the 16th and 17th amendments must be repealed, an outright prohibition and a provision should be added that states that when the federal government over-steps its authority that threatens the balance of power between federal government and the states, it shall be viewed as a fatal breach of the compact that binds the states and as such they have the option of dissolving their allegiance. However, if the Constitution cannot be amended to assure that a future government remains adherent to its limits, then James Madison has set the example for us. We don’t have to “amend” the Constitution if we believe it to be seriously flawed. We can simply start from scratch.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence continues:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, 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….”

Our government has been intent on enlarging and redefining its powers almost from the very beginning. It has done everything it has wanted to do to achieve the things it believed it needed to do or simply wanted to do (as in Barack Obama’s case). A government dependent on the separation of powers for proper functioning has become a government monopoly to ignore proper functioning in order to become what the British Kings used to be…. Supreme, domineering, coercive, and oppressive. The people’s government has been replaced by the government’s government. Liberty-loving Americans have been disposed to suffer long enough. Threats to take away our gun rights, however, would be the final straw.

Should Obama and his administration do more than simply talk about gun control and possible confiscation, it would be incumbent upon the states to NULLIFY any legislation or policy and then INTERPOSE for the protection and security of the People to have and bear arms. The next step, should the government fail to back down, would be to declare the federal action or actions to constitute a FATAL BREACH of the compact that brought the states together in the union and therefore the bonds of allegiance are severed and the Union creating the “United States” is thereby dissolved. The federal government would therefore have no jurisdiction except within the District of Columbia, I suppose.

The states need to act – NOW. Each state needs to adopt resolutions and enact legislation protecting the gun rights of its citizens. Those that respect the second amendment need to start attracting gun manufacturing and ammunition industry to their states. The states need to put the president and the administration, and including the federal courts, on notice of their intentions.

If the federal government intends to or attempts to violate the second amendment, the People need to know they can count on their government – that is, their state government. I hope their response will be clear and collective – WE WILL NOT COMPLY… WE WILL NULLIFY! Liberty will require such a response.


Patrick Henry’s Speech, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/news/patrick-henrys-liberty-or-death-speech-240-years-ago

Congress Petitions English King to Address Grievances, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-petitions-english-king-to-address-grievances

King George III Speaks to Parliament of American Rebellion, History.com. Referenced at: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

“Obama Trashes the Constitution and No One Says a Damn Thing!”, Mark Levin Show. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+levin+obama+trashes+the+constitution+and+no+one+says+a+thing Also referenced at: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-trashes-the-constitution-and-nobody-says-a-damn-thing/

“Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control; Hints at Confiscation,” Breitbart News, October 3, 2015. Referenced at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/

“The Second Amendment: It’s Meaning and Purpose, The Tenth Amendment Center, September 22, 2014. Referenced at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

“Madison’s Introduction of the Bill of Rights,” usconstitution.net. Referenced at: http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html


The Intolerable Acts included the following:
(i) Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.
(ii) Massachusetts Government Act, which gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists.
(iii) Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America.
(iv) The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama Trashes the Constitution and No One Says a Damn Thing!

Mark Levin #2

The history of the federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and the People. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world by famed constitutional lawyer, author, and conservative talk radio show host, Mark Levin…….

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment