…..As regular readers of this column know, I am passionate in my defense of the Natural right of self-defense. I firmly believe that the only thing standing between us and tyranny is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The freedom of speech, the right to assemble and redress government, the right to be secure in our own homes, the right to a trial by jury, the freedom of worship, etc., all depend on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When the people of America surrender this right, all of the other rights will quickly disappear.
Without a doubt, Daniel Webster is America’s most notable jurist. And while I would not concur with all of Webster’s political positions, he was absolutely correct when he said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” Thus, loving, guarding, and defending liberty is the full-time responsibility of every American. Unfortunately, not every American loves freedom enough to guard and defend it.
In fact, many Americans are actively engaged in the pursuit of ideas and principles that are diametrically opposed to liberty. And sadder still is the fact that many of these people would call themselves “Christians.”
Let’s be honest: calling oneself a “Christian” means nothing. Many self-professed Christians are just as crooked and dishonest as those who make no Christian profession. Many of them are just as mean-spirited, vengeful, and hateful as any other group of people on the planet. And, just as with virtually any other group of people, not every Christian is a friend of freedom.
Why Republicans Sell Us Out
Freedom Outpost ^ | Mar. 21, 2013 | Publius Huldah
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:59:07 AM by EXCH54FE
It is a cliché to speak of “spineless Republicans”-Google spineless republicans and you will see. They talk “conservative” when they campaign; but once in office, they go along with the progressive agenda. That agenda is to grow the federal government until it controls every aspect of our lives.
Why don’t they oppose the progressive agenda? 1
Rush Limbaugh says they don’t oppose it because they want to be invited to the right parties and praised in the liberal media.
Forget Guns…How About More ‘Congress Control’? (GyG: How Bout Back To Our First Constitution, The Articles of Confederation !!!!!)
Part 1 – A Look Behind the Curtain
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. - Daniel Webster
Every elected federal official in the U.S. must take an oath of office. The first Congress swore the oath in 1789; it was revised during the Civil War and the current version was enacted in 1884: “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.”
Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionst
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment
Abraham Lincoln, his administration, and members of the U.S. Congress committed treason when they levied war against the Southern states in 1861-1865. This fact is clearly proven by the plain words of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution that defines treason as follows:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (emphasis added).
As in all the founding documents, the phrase “United States” is in the plural, signifying the free, independent and sovereign states. The free and independent states were united in ratifying the Constitution and delegating a few powers to the national government (Article 1, Section 8), while reserving all others for the people, respectively, or the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If the American people were to be the masters rather than the servants of their national government, the only way they could do so would be through political communities organized at the state and local levels.
This of course is how the Constitution was ratified – by political conventions of the states, as directed by Article 7 of the Constitution. Since Lincoln never admitted that secession was legal or constitutional, and insisted that the Southern states had never actually left the American union, he knowingly committed treason as defined by the Constitution by invading the Southern states.
By Alan Keyes
Among those still enthralled by the GOP, I guess that a majority would say they still respect America’s Revolutionary founders. And among those who do, some would even profess to adhere to the principles of the Revolution the founders made. Of course, that Revolution was not completed when the representatives of the people in their respective states moved to declare their independence on July 2, 1776.
Nor was it completed once they had supported the declaration made on July 4th by successful battle. But the aim they fought for was provisionally achieved once they united to ordain and establish the Constitution of a general government that respected the Revolution’s principles.
I frequently consult the famous articles on the Constitution produced by some of the American revolutionaries as part of the effort to persuade the people of the respective states to ratify the Constitution. In its compiled and edited form, their commentary has come to be known as “The Federalist.” In Federalist 10, Madison wrote: “In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”
DICK ACT of 1902. . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
(“…from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush”) Rethinking America’s Supreme Judicial Dictatorship by Thomas DiLorenzo
Yours Truly contributes an essay on how, from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush.
Indeed, the latter characters might well have learned their tactics from their fellow nationalists in America generations earlier. Hitler himself did in fact quote Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in Mein Kampf to make his case for centralized governmental power and the abolition of states’ rights in Germany.
Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:59:38 AM by No One Special
On Saturday morning, October 25, 1851, Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune , entrenched after a decade of existence as America’s leading Whig daily, appeared with twelve pages rather than its usual eight. The occasion was too noteworthy to be passed over without comment by the paper itself. So a special editorial was written—probably by Greeley’s young managing editor, the brisk, golden-whiskered Charles A. Dana—to point it out.
Besides a “press of advertisements.” the editorial ran, this morning’s enlarged paper contained “articles from some foreign contributors that are especially worthy of attention.” Among these were “a letter from Madame Belgioioso, upon the daily and domestic life of the Turks, and another upon Germany by one of the clearest and most vigorous writers that country has produced—no matter what may be the judgment of the critical upon his public opinions in the sphere of political and social philosophy.”
Turning the pages to see who this most clear and vigorous German might be, readers glanced past such items as a “Grand Temperance Rally in the igth Ward“; a Philadelphia story headlined “Cruelty of a Landlord—Brutality of a Husband”: a Boston campaign telegram announcing a Whig demonstration “in favor of Daniel Webster for President.” Then they reached a long article entitled “Revolution and Counter-Revolution,” over the by-line, Karl Marx.
“The first act of the revolutionary drama on the Continent of Europe has closed,” it began upon a somber organ tone; ”“The ‘powers that were’ before the hurricane of 1848………………………
Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”| The Post & Email
WHO ARE THE CURRENT DEFENDERS OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Daniel Webster was a successful attorney who argued cases in front of the Supreme Court between 1801 and 1824Nov. 10, 2010 —
Daniel Webster, known as the “Defender of the Constitution,” was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State.
In 1820, what later became known as the State of Main separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution.
The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office.
This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”