© ignoranceorapathy.com 02/25/2009

Just my thoughts on this subject.
Food for thought, doesn't our progressive tax code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution? By takiing more from one group of citizens and less from others and even giving money to some who have not earned it, out of the pockets of those who have, how does this provide equal protection for all citizens under the law?

Read more »

© ignoranceorapathy.com 11/07/2008
Open letter to all outgoing Republican U.S. Senators.

With the loss of the White House, more seats in the House and the Senate our nation faces what could be perilous if not radical socialist times. It therefore would be in the best interest of the nation if you Republican Senators who have lost your seats make one last effort on the part of our republic.

Philabuster the Senate!

Stop all proceedings in the Senate including the Electoral College process until the Senate brings to the floor votes on all of George W. Bushes Judicial appointments. Last I knew there are approximately 150 federal benches awaiting judges that the Senate has not voted on.

Read more »

Link: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.htm

Reprinted without permission.
I have posted this here for two reasons.
1. Everyone should know that an effort is underway to force Mr. Obama to live up to the requirements of Article II of our Constitution.

2. So that others who will may have the oppurtunity to donate to this cause, it is very expensive to run this ad.

CLICK HERE to make your secure donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money they have raised so far.

An Open Letter to Barack Obama:


Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?

Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

Dear Mr. Obama:

On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Read more »

Link: http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Let me give you a little back ground on Dr. Vieira:

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

So based on that I think you should read what he has to say about the Constitutional and legal situation should an unverified, ineligible Barack (Barry)Obama be elected or sworn in.

Read more »

Two very surprising developments in the war on guns occurred last month. One in the District of Columbia and the other in the Great State of Texas.
After 30 years of Unconstitutional repression the citizens of the District will finally be free to exercise there God given right to self defense.

I know this grates on the nerves of the left but the truth is the truth. I have done it before and will do it again, post the exact wording of the Second Amendment so you can read it with out some Government school teacher interpreting it for you.
(for those of you interested the bill of rights can be found here)

Now just in case you prefer the nightly news version I will break this down.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,(Big Comma There).
Militia, at the time of the writing was not as some Anti-Freedom types like to say refering to membership in the National Guard. The National Guard did not exist at the time of the writing of our Constitution. Militia in that time frame refers to the orderly gathering of citizens together to aid in the defense. Both the defense of the country as a whole, the state, or even the city or little burg they lived in. It meant and literally still does mean that every peasant with a gun can and should be the last line of defense for the security of a free state. Then there is the Comma, to me the biggest comma in American History. That comma means as it does in many other of the fist ten amendments
“we think these ideas are linked but not dependant on each other”.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms,(again the comma) shall not be infringed. Clearly just as with all ten amendments this means that Congress has no authority in this matter. This as with all of the Bill of Rights, it clearly restricts the Government from interfering in a right granted by our creator and clearly that right is granted to individuals not some mythical group. Here is your reference example:
Eight Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required,(again one of those nasty commas) nor excessive fines imposed…

Now if you believe the Government school teachers or the leftist gun control activists you would have to think that in just 6 little amendments the framers completely changed how they thought and wrote down those thoughts. Excessive bail shall not be required, the comma exists to state “we think these ideas belong together but are not beholden to each other” nor excessive fines imposed. Now if you are to believe the Left about the second amendment meaning the militia is only supposed to have guns then you have to believe here that the framers meant that if the bail was reasonable then the fine could be outrageous, or that if the fine was reasonable then the bail could be your first born child. What they meant is exactly what you read, the government can not do either of these things. Exactly as the Second reads, the government can not restrict either of these activities and neither one individually is dependant on participation in the other. Individual citizens can not be restricted from owning weapons to defend themselves, their families and their property from invaders no matter they be thieves, foreign armies or the Federal government.

So now in the March ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court on an appeal from a lower court we get this:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.

Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The judges of the D.C. Circuit Court understand exactly what role they are to play in the legislative process. They are to read the law and then see if it violates by letter or spirit any section, clause or amendment to the Constitution. They in fact did exactly what the framers intended, they realized that a legislature had passed a law that specifically violated the citizen’s rights and they struck down that law.

This one is a freebie: (just cause it drives socialists crazy)
Tenth Amendment:

Simply put, if power is not specifically granted here then the Government has NO Authority to Regulate. So it shoots holes in the theory that Government can do anything that the Constitution does not say it cannot. No, Government may ONLY do the things that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says it can, and nothing else.

Now on to the heartwarming part, in the Great State of Texas the Legislature and the Governors office have realized that the right to self-preservation and protection of ones person, family and property is a right far beyond the reach of mans laws. On March 27th 2007 Governor Rick Perry’s office released this statement:

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force".

The state legislature of Texas has finally realized that citizens have a right to defend themselves. They have now taken the first step toward correcting on of the biggest and most egregious injustices that exist in our nation today. The notion that government entities are supposed to protect us. It is the right and responsibility of the citizen to be prepared to protect and defend themselves, their families, their property and their livelihood against all who would do them harm. Now Texas has put that on paper and made it law. The State can not seek prosecution of a citizen who exercises the God given right to self defense.
We salute Gov. Perry and the sitting Texas Legislature for realizing that the rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon by Government.

(Exact text of Texas Senate Bill 378 can be found here)

(Explanation of how this affects Texas Citizens can be found here)