The Form of a Republic

Since the beginning of our nation, leaders have referred top our nation as a Republic.  The Fact that we have utilized democracy as the basis for how we are governed is common knowledge among Americans.

Or is it?

The definition of an American republic was established by James Madison, originally as a representative republic rather than a direct democracy.  A direct democracy is where you and I would vote on everything; we would pass bills, veto laws, etc. This is most commonly seen in some local elections as "balance measures." This form of voting usually has little to no nationwide impacts.

The reason that ballot measures typically will not affect America nationwide, is because our form of government is a representative republic.  The means that you and I will vote for representatives to appropriately vote or establish laws and policies on our behalf. 

Here’s how the original set up of our nation’s republic used to look.

Voters would elect their local representatives.  These state reps would choose federal reps to act on the state’s behalf at the federal level.  If the state’s interests were not being represented accurately, the state would recall the representative or senator in question and replace them with someone who would.

The beauty of this system allowed for little government rule over the states and established a necessary means of regulating interstate/international commerce by establishment of a monetary system and protecting our nation via the military.

However, after the Civil War, the United States Federal government changed its viewpoint to reflect that we were no longer sovereign states overseen by a limited government.  The United States of America changed from being treated as plural – “these united States” – to being a single entity – “the United States.”

With this change, America was now one nation in all aspects.  Our federal government then had acquired the power to reign supreme over the states, and states’ rights became a far second to federal wants.  This directly violates that 10^th amendment.  (Essentially the states were now like counties in a state.)  While I agree with the 13^th Amendment to abolish slavery, when President Lincoln enacted federal policy over the South, he set a precedent – that the federal government has absolute power over the people.

While  modern apologetic and progressive educators will attempt to convince us that the Civil War was only about slavery, it was not.  It was about and only about state’s rights to govern themselves. 

Later in American history, with the ratification of the 17^th Amendment, in 1911 by the Senate and 1912 by the House, the states lost more of their sovereignty.  The 17^th Amendment allowed for direct election of federal congressmen by popular vote.  At times and even now it may seem a good idea that we the people are to be choosing our legislators.

There are two major problems in this reasoning.

1.       The masses, the people of our nation, have become weak minded, slack moral, ill-educated fools.  Most Americans don’t care or care to know about their rights, politics, or their politicians.  9/10 people that I’ve asked (out of 113) have never even read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.  This is scary.  If we don’t know what the issues are or don’t care, direct elections can be very dangerous, as we can currently see.

2.       The federal government usurps the power from the states and helps themselves to your money, your freedoms and your life.  Take Obama-care for instance, that bill has dozens of new taxes that strips you of your hard-earned money; it demands we submit our health and at times our very lives to the will of some unseen bureaucrat who knows where.  The federal legislators are not even required to follow these laws; they are exempt from Obama-care.  Many federal legislators have been proposing and pushing for submitting our nation to the rule of the United Nations.  This means that everything we know is in jeopardy.  Every freedom – speech, religion, even down to how we teach our children becomes dictated to us by the United Nations.

These examples are only a few to give you an idea about the gravity of the situation.  This is what the popularity contest and Facebooking and Twittering and basically “prom king and queen” type politics has gotten us via the popular vote. 

I bring this not to scare you, but you should be.  I don’t want you to hate our nation, but hate those who lack integrity.  In the upcoming elections you will see ads against conservatives who want to, or have the personal convictions that, our nation needs to be restored to a states’ rights nation.  The Leftists say that these candidates want to strip you of your right to vote.  It is definitely not that.  There is concern for people who vote based off of their Facebook account or Twitter, or because it’s the cool person, rather than voting based off the issues. 

Our rights have been threatened, but not because of conservatives looking for smaller government.  They have been threatened by the teenie-boppers and peer pressure.  Our rights have been threatened by our own stupidity and ignorance.

“Silence is Golden” as Federal Policy?

Today is Constitution Day.

Unfortunately, this week we may see the beginnings of yet another attack on our Constitution.  Supreme Court Justice Breyer was interviewed on Good Morning America this week about his new book.  However, discussions strayed from his new book to the consequences of citizens using their speech freely, as demonstrated last weekend with Florida Pastor Jones in the threat to burn a Koran.

I have avoided writing about Pastor Jones regarding his threat to burn a Koran for a specific reason.  I wanted to see what the outcome would be.  I knew that the Usurper in Chief would get involved and that Jones would have most likely not followed through on his promise to burn a Koran on 9/11 of this year.

For the very reason he was chastised and ridiculed as a hate-monger, he should have burned the Koran.  He was Constitutionally protected to do so, and as any good American using his right to free speech, there should have been no repercussions for it.

Justice Breyer mentioned that, “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater… Well, what is it?  Why?  Because people will be trampled to death.”  Even someone in a highly respected position as a Supreme Court Justice can be unmistakably wrong.

Justice Breyer is referring to Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919.  This is a popular Quote but often taken out of context.  The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous.  The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, which is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Here is the key, the Supreme Court has ruled in past that false and dangerous speech should be limited, not true and dangerous speech.  Pastor Jones wanted to show Islam that enough was enough and we (as Christians) were not going to take any more of their – let’s say stuff.  I absolutely agree that we should not allow for the Islamic Jihadists of our world dominate nor dictate to us how we are to act or believe.  It is only out of fear that they may attain that power. 

So if it is illegal to shout “fire” when there is no fire, because the powers that be say that someone might be unintentionally hurt, why do people see that burning a Koran is a bad thing?  If Jones were to burn a Koran and – as this past week has shown – Muslim extremists go out and kill some Christians for it, are these unintentional repercussions?

No.  They are not the direct result of his own actions or speech.  When these Christians were killed this week, that was the intentional reaction of militant terrorists that had an “religious” affinity for killing Christians already.  These Jihadists were only acting out they ONLY thing they know how to do.  Behave like a two year old with a gun.

Back to the point. 

If Justice Breyer and his anti-patriots in the Supreme Court bring the First Amendment under review, it will become just one more way for the government to attain power.  One more way, for our nation to fall.

He goes on to suggest that cases are what will determine the legality of burning a Koran.  “Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought.  Arguments are made.  The judges sit back and think.  And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason.”  With the reasoning that comes from the Leftist-Progressive judges in the Supreme Court currently holding position, this is a scary thought.

Do you see the irony in making it illegal to burn a Koran, in a Nation where it is legal to burn a Bible and the American Flag?  Scary times ahead.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-breyer-questions-free-speech-right-to-burn-korans/

Washington Times Publishes Call For Impeachment

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment-142967590/?page=1

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

It is about time some one has the backbone to print the truth about the matter.  I hope each and every one of you out there gets a chance to read this mans article in the Washington Times. 

There is a large supporting argument that is backed by our Nation's ever-growing feelings that the Usurper in Chief must go.  I cannot put it in any better terms than the way Mr.  Jeffrey T. Kuhner did in this article.

Banning the Second Amendment!

Think of this, you are on your property in North Carolina. You go to the street to tape up damaged windows on your car. You are weary of looters or other ragamuffins that could potentially harm you or your family, so you wear your S&W 686 .357 with pride to fend off your foes. You make it to the street and you hear, “Excuse me, sir.”

Turning around you see a police officer standing there with cuffs in one hand and his gun in the other. “I need you to put the gun down and get on your knees. Now!”

In doing as you are told the windows don’t get fixed, and you get taken to jail for FOUR months. This, all for protecting yourself while in a state of emergency. Sounds like a crock of something doesn’t it. Well, for North Carolina residents, this nightmare became a reality.

Just yesterday, the governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue, issued Executive Order No. 62 to declare a State of Emergency for North Carolina in advance of the arrival of Hurricane Earl. By doing this, she effectively banned the use of guns in North Carolina.

What is Executive Order No. 62? It is pretty much just a state of emergency legislation. However, General Statute 14-288.7, directly prohibits the transportation of “dangerous weapons.”

Here is what it says:

§ 14 288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
          (1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or
          (2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.
(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14 269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

If this order is violated, you could go to jail for up to 120 days. This impacts the lives of anyone with a concealed handgun permit, sport shooters, and anyone else carrying or possessing a firearm outside their homes.

Unfortunately, the victims of hurricane Katrina had felt the sting of this type of law as well and many suffered for it. Now, a couple of states have put into place laws protecting the second amendment from emergency acts such as this one.

One specific problem in having legislation like General Statute 14-288.7, is that the federal government can place these laws into affect as well. In fact, Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, is noted saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Which can be lead to understand that the federal government’s stance on this would be that they have the right to suspend the Second Amendment indefinitely.

This is unconstitutional. The governor of North Carolina has opened Pandora’s Box by signing this law. Essentially, this kind of legislation could be used to ban handguns across the nation. Given the Usurper in Chief’s stance on gun control, the possibility for a nationwide ban is not far reaching.

In a 2008 Presidential Debate, The Usurper in Chief stated on the issue, “…Just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right...”

While denying that he endorsed a handgun ban in Illinois, documentation exists and was filed while he ran for the State Senate in 1996 showing his true thought on the matter. When asked, “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”
He responded, “Yes.”
Ban assault weapons? “Yes.”
Mandatory waiting periods and background checks? “Yes (http://bit.ly/ainWME).”

The Usurper in Chief has always held the mentality of restricting (at best) and banning (at worst) American’s right to bear arms.

Here’s the deal, we as human beings have the right, a calling by God, to protect ourselves and our families with the force that we have at our disposal. No government or political power should be able to take that away. EVER.

This means that any ban – potential or enacted – on our ability to protect ourselves and/or families is not only unconstitutional but goes against our very Creator. All it takes is one insignificant little action of one insignificant individual and it would cause a massive domino effect. Given this current administration's stance on gun control, they could essentially strip us of our rights to bear arms FOREVER. Just one excuse under the guise of National Defense, one considerable threat and guns are no more.

The commonly held misperception of the Second Amendment only ensures that the politicos are unable to take our guns from us without a reason. We reject the very idea that rights come from government. Rights, all of them, including the right to keep and bear arms, are God's gift to mankind. The various amendments to the Constitution are nothing more than a directive from our founding fathers to all future governments that they may NOT infringe on those rights.

Remember... "REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIANCE TO GOD" http://gunshowonthenet.com/writings/OriginalIntent.html

Once you leave your property in North Carolina you must do so unarmed for the duration of the emergency. That is, unless you are going dove hunting. I'm sure it would be too expensive for the state to give up the revenue from dove hunters. http://www.ncwildlife.org/NewsReleases/090210_Dove_Season_Opens_as_Scheduled_on_Sept4htm.htm

Find Executive Order No. 62 here.
http://www.governor.state.nc.us/library/pdf/execOrderArchives/2004/08-August/06-Hurricane%20Alex%20Disaster%20Declaration.pdf

General Statute 14-288.7,
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.7.html

More information on the Usurper in Chief’s views on gun control here:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

To contact the Governor's Office in North Carolina:
Constituent Services Office

The Constituent Services Office is here to respond to requests and questions from citizens throughout North Carolina. To contact the Constituent Services Office:
Office of the Governor
Constituent Services Office
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone: (800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391
Fax: (919) 733-2120
governor.office@nc.gov

Governor’s Office
Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
Phone: (919)733-4240
Fax: (919)733-2120

Appeal to Repeal‏

The implications for our nation's desire to repeal the 14th Amendment are great, yet shocking.

First, the 14th Amendment of our constitution basically grants that anyone born within the borders of our nation is considered an American citizen. This has unfortunately been taken advantage of as many illegal immigrants come to the United States, give birth and then use their children to sponsor their requests for permanent residency. As many as 340,000 of these "anchor babies" are born in the United States every year.

This has caused for millions of dollars to be spent on welfare systems in each state every year.

As of July of this year, the estimated number of Mexican nationals in America was 1 in 8. That means that over 10% of Mexicans live here in America illegally. To put it another way, in 2009, the Mexican population was over 111 million. This means that almost 16 million illegal immigrants - from Mexico alone - are drawing benefits from our social programs.

We are footing the bill.

Think of the ramifications of having that many people from any nation entering our own. One of the major problems of this invasion is that if granted amnesty like the Usurper in Chief's administration wants, this is an extremely large block of potential voters.

If amnesty is granted, we will never see conservative values in our nation again.

The resolution put on the table by GOP congressional leaders is to repeal the 14th Amendment. This would in fact resolve the "anchor baby" issue. However, we would find ourselves in a scarier time than now.

Imagine this, Nancy Pelosi said in 2003 that a baby isn't a person until 30 days after they go home from the hospital. If the 14th Amendment is repealed, and the "progressive leftists" remain anywhere close to power, this could be extended until the age 18. This may sound like a stretch, but it isn’t a very big one.

How would your children be able to "earn" their citizenship?

Imagine counter balancing the political power of 16 million voters spread across America. A rather large concession would have to be offered in order to convince the Usurper in Chief not to veto this bill.

The Usurper in Chief has an idea. What he has suggested in the past is that every citizen has an obligation to serve in a "civic service" not unlike a civilian military assigned to police our neighborhoods "for the greater good.” Basically, we earn our "right" to be a citizen by policing our own friends and neighbors.

Including a clause such as one that mandates a civic duty requirement to receive citizenship is one of the few ways that the Usurper in Chief would even consider signing a bill like this.

If we don't give him this, any other cost would be just as devastating.

Here’s a positive solution though so long as we can get past the Usurper in Chief. Amend the 14th Amendment to state that any child born to one or both parents of illegal status do not receive “birthright” citizenship. Of course, this is really going to upset some of those Liberation theorists and leftist progressives in Washington D.C.

Folks, it is time to stand up. Time to fight against our nation being stolen by illegal immigrants and dirty politics. Let us amend the 14th Amendment and not repeal it all together leaving our nation susceptible to mandated civic duties. Let us remove the concern with “anchor babies” and reallocate those Welfare funds to Americans who really need it. If we find Mexican or other illegal immigrants coming here to have babies, pop them out and send them back.

We should be more willing to help someone once than to support them for generations. You don’t pay taxes for that. You pay taxes for roads, schools, police and our military (etc.). Following this idea will save American money and resources… for Americans.

Banning Our Ammo!!!

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/08/25/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition/

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

<Excerpted-Click on the link at the top to read the rest of the story>

First, if you want to see the original petition, go to http://bit.ly/cOoHr2, and if you want to skip that and just submit a comment against this petition, go to http://bit.ly/9nMgdT.

We are urged by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to leave comments in opposition to the petition. If you do so, please address the following issues.

• There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
• Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
• A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
• A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.
• Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.Contact information will be provided for Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), in a bit.

Second, what is THIS about!?

Talk about an agenda driven measure to STRIP Americans of their second amendment rights! “Sure you can own guns to protect yourself, BUT you’ll never be able to use them.” That is the very problem with activists such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

They are saying that the lead core of bullets used for hunting is causing the lead poisoning of wildlife. Um, did someone hit their heads too hard? I have spent A LOT of time researching this.

Legitimate scientific evidence that supports the claim that traditional Ammunition harms wildlife population DOES NOT EXIST. How many hundreds of years has mankind been hunting with lead based bullets? The use of lead ammunition dates back to the 14th century and parallels development of gunpowder. However, the GOVERNMENT officials and ACTIVISTS say that in the last 100 years lead poisoning has become a problem of “epidemic proportions (http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/details.asp?ID=86).”

I have found it to be most likely the result of the Usurper in Chief’s “regulatory czar,” Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is one of the most radical animal rights bureaucrats in the White House and as a close friend of the Usurper in Chief was appointed as head of the Office of INFORMATION and REGULATORY Affairs.

To give you a little background on the guy,

He wrote the book, “Nudge.” “Nudge is a book that looks at you and me as Guinea pigs. He writes about how to manipulate us into doing exactly what we are “supposed” to do. A little nudge here, a little nudge there, guiding us to be a better utopian society.

This is the guy who tried to get all of us out of our SUVs. Global warming this, and global warming that, Please don’t drive them *sniff*, Oh the HUMANITY! Well this didn’t work sooooo…

That’s about the time you hear about this amazing deal known as “CASH FOR CLUNKERS.” Aha!

Manipulative little guy isn’t he?

So with that established, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has executive powers from the White House, which include the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. The Department of the Interior maintains regulation over national and wildlife issues. While the EPA is not under any DIRECT control of these departments, they are “supposed” to work in unison.

This means that there is an EXTREMELY pro-animal rights activist who potentially has the ability to influence whether we are able to use ammunition. Does this sound at all like the Cash for Clunkers bit?
There is another piece to this upsetting puzzle.

THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR A BAN ON AMMO MAKES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Think of this. You are granted a right by the Constitution, a right that is INALIENABLE anyway. Constitutions do not grant rights. Rights that are granted can be revoked. Besides, the US constitution is merely a list of things the government can't do. But, because some ninny is concerned about a bird or two, and wants (with a “Nudge”) to ban Lead Core Ammunition from being used, they are essentially stripping the ABILITY TO USE ANY GUN AWAY FROM US! Lead Core Ammunition is the cheapest way for us to protect ourselves and its mainstream use for hunting and plinking is no more common than SELF PROTECTION.

Oh, you’re GOOD Usurper in Chief. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

The “regulatory czar” will most likely allow us to purchase non-Lead Ammunition BUT at a price. How does $5.00 - $10.00 A BULLET sound? They can also decide and will, probably sooner than we think, expect us to catalog or limit the number of rounds we are to buy.

This is NOT GOOD. When we are on the brink of having a Totalitarian/Authoritarian government regime.

If we are not there ALREADY.

So what if they ban our ammo? They make us more susceptible to their attacks and pressures to cow to their demands and LOSE OUR FREEDOM to another England but WORSE. Look at two of the most famous totalitarian leaders of last century: Stalin and Hitler.

They are taxing us to a point of not surviving (http://secondamendmentman.blogspot.com/2010/08/tax-storm-is-coming.html) and then taking away our abilities to provide and protect ourselves.

This road is getting shorter. The bridge is almost crossed. We are almost there.

I promised to provide you with contact information. I could not find any contact info for Cass Sunstien except for his Harvard Email.

Publicly provided contact information for the following:

• Cass Sunstein
•  Phone: 617-496-2291
•  John F. Kennedy School of Government
•  Mailbox NR
•  79 JFK Street
•  Email: csunstei@law.harvard.edu
• Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
•  P.O. Box 710
•  Tucson, AZ 85702-0710
•  Phone: (520) 623.5252
•  Toll-free: (866) 357.3349
•  Fax: (520) 623.9797
•  Email: center@biologicaldiversity.org
• Lisa P. Jackson
•  Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
•  1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
•  Washington, DC 20460
•  Phone: (202) 564-4700
•  Fax: (202) 501-1450
•  Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Authoritarianism

http://www.answers.com/topic/authoritarianism

Principle of unqualified submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. As a political system, authoritarianism is antidemocratic in that political power is concentrated in a leader or small elite not constitutionally responsible to those governed. It differs from totalitarianism in that authoritarian governments usually lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits. See also absolutism, dictatorship.

I just have to say something quick and brief here.  How many Czars of whatever are ther entitled to the Usurper In Chief by the Constitution?

What about the spending that will ultimately be America's end?

JOBS? LAWS? POWER GRABS? CORRUPTION? SPENDING? OBAMACARE? EDUCATION AND INDOCTRINATION OF KINDERGARTENERS TO HOMOSEXUALITY?


REALLY?

Ground Zero Mosque Protests Fan the Flames of Jihad

http://foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&content=41962378&pageNum=-1

It seems that rhetoric and propaganda are getting the best of us again. The Islamic Jihadists are using the Ground Zero Mosque issue to fuel their hatred against America.

However, Americans have a part to play in this as well. They are playing into the hands of the Islamic Jihadists who have placed this issue on the table. Yes I said PLACED.

With the protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and the expression of anti-Muslim sentiment growing nationwide, Islamic Jihadists are stepping up their threats against the United States.

They are blaming us for starting this fight. One Jihadist threatened suicide bombings in Florida as a retaliatory measure against a threat to burn a Koran.

As for the comment about Islamic Jihadists PLACING this conflict in our midst, here are a few points that we all MUST realize:

1) It is Islamic Jihadists' goal to cause as much disruption and terror in the U.S.


2) The plans proposed for the Ground Zero Mosque are to cost well over $100 MILLION.


3) Feisal Abdul Rauf - the Muslim Imam who presented the ideas and plans for the mosque at Ground Zero - has just over $100,000 in his personal finances and assets.


4) The Interfaith Alliance refuses to provide WHERE and WHO this $100 MILLION is coming from. All we know is that the money is coming from mostly an international source. However, IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA have not been ruled out as contributors (http://bit.ly/cm76NG).

 5) Fifteen of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals, and Iran is a known sponsor of terrorist groups.

6) The Interfaith Alliance is pushing for the Ground Zero Mosque to be built and answering protests with arguments based on "their" constitutional rights to freedom of religion. However, Freedom of religion should not be a concern here. There needs to be a level of decency extended to the families of the 9/11 victims. This is ONLY CAUSING DISRUPTION and TERRORISTIC THREATS between non-Muslims and Jihadists.

7) The increasing unrest, protests and threats of violence to Muslims combined with anti-Muslim sentiment expressed across the United States has only offered up a lousy EXCUSE (at best ) for Islamic Jihadists to attack us AGAIN! But they will no matter how weak the excuse.

8) Islamic Jihadists have PROMISED retribution for spreading HATE about Islam.

9) IT IS ISLAMIC JIHADISTS' GOAL TO CAUSE AS MUCH DISRUPTION AND TERROR IN THE U.S.!

Okay. What I get from looking at the facts, to me, means that Iran and Saudi Arabia have been known to sponsor terrorist groups in or against the U.S. Right? So if they are the ones funding the Ground Zero Mosque, AND their goals - as proponents of Islamic Jihad - are to cause as much disruption and terror in the U.S.; would it be safe to believe that Islamic Jihadists are behind the proposal of the Mosque?

If Islamic Jihadists are behind the proposal of the Ground Zero Mosque, then someone took their time planning how things would play out. Someone guessed correctly (and quite easily) that American citizens – let alone New Yorkers – would be upset. They guessed correctly that the leftist puppet in chief would come out in support of the Ground Zero Mosque. They guessed correctly that there would be political polarization and protests, big puffed up threats and Anti-Muslim comments being made. They guessed correctly that it could very well split our nation, leaving us weak and distracted. They knew that the door will soon open for them to attack.

The other aspect of this, is that, the very thought of Islamic Jihadists threatening the U.S. for protesting a mosque being built at Ground Zero - the location where THE VERY SAME JIHADISTS DESTROYED the World Trade Center buildings- are the ones funding and potentially attacking the U.S. is sickening - more terror.

  Is it okay to have the Ground Zero Mosque built two blocks away from the World Trade Center Site?

No.

No it is not. If the Ground Zero Mosque is built, a 13 story “Multi Faith Youth Facility not unlike a YMCA(crap)( Found at http://bit.ly/cgT1JU )” will scar the hearts and minds of Americans for years to come – AS LONG AS IT STANDS. New Yorkers and Non-New Yorkers alike will see the Mosque for what it really is.

  A reminder. A slap in the face that “we killed your families and loved ones and destroyed your buildings AND THEN were not only allowed by YOUR government but also SUPPORTED by your government to erect a monument to the destruction WE caused.”

 But that was the plan all along wasn’t it?

The Second Amendment

I recently started thinking about the second amendment and what it means. Or, rather what the second amendment should mean for you and me as individuals and citizens of this fine nation.

The second amendment states:

“Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In my understanding, this means to me that our second amendment right allows us not only to own guns but also to use them to protect ourselves from criminals and other threats.

In being a “well regulated Militia,” the second amendment says that we as citizens are to be able to protect ourselves from foreign governments that may attempt to invade. However, I also take this to mean that we may protect ourselves from authoritarian regimes. If a government is an authoritarian regime, then it has started controlling more power than is legally granted by its constitution or is attempting to rule over another nation with absolute power. Look At England at the beginning of this great nation's history, for example.

This seems to be a simple way of describing it, but we need to make a simple adjustment to our vision.

PROXIMITY

Authoritarian governments may (and do) exist all over the world. These governments include places such as China, North Korea and Iran. However, many more nations than this in the world are authoritarians. This is just to set the premise.

If we (the United States of America) were to be taken over by one of these types of Governments, we would go to war. Would we not?

So, the question remains that if our own government becomes this authoritarian government, What should we do?

While the Constitution grants us the right to protect ourselves in the second amendment, we must utilize violence only as a last resort. I do not condone the use of violence and would love to see this great nation restored to greatness. But war is not the answer, and hopefully will not ever be.

That is why we must stand up now, America. Take progressive liberalism by their reproductive parts and kick them – HARD! All while being as patient and respectful as possible…of course.

Now hold on a minute here, I am NOT telling any of you to ACTUALLY stomp on some poor democrats scrotum (just yet), only to make sure that we can unite as a nation of FREE MEN (and women) and kick this nasty habit of letting any and all of our very decency go to the wayside.

Only a couple of months left to get the message out. Let’s work on it.

And for God's sake! Leave my second amendment alone!

Welcome to The Second Amendment Man.

I want to personally thank you for signing up and hope that you will enjoy my blog. If there is anything that you need or would like to hear about, just shoot me a quick email and I'll cover it as soon as I can. If you are interested in further dialogue or interjecting your own thoughts, let me know and you may be able to offer guest posts or other thoughts.