Living Freedom

http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/

The Spirit Within

there's a part of me i'll never know
that long lost Indian of many moons ago
my daughter's name was Many Bluebells
with spittled hair and sweated brow
and forced to run the gauntlet now
that led us all right straight to hell
the muted sun
the frozen ground
nothing making any sound
bodies lying all around
staring faces with grimaces
upon a bunch of primitives
this i was told not long ago
and one I hope to more deeply know

And the Answer Is....

walking down to the mailbox this morning, I was overcome with feeling.
   the wind was whispering softly through the pines that lined my path.  

as i continued walking, i felt an overwhelming sense that these pines were actually watching me.      

  they seemed to say 'good morning' in unison, as soft murmurs and sounds of rustling branches filled my ears.  

   i stopped and looked up...'good morning to you', i said.

at that moment, an awareness of all things being whole, all things being one, overcame me.

  at these moments nothing on earth matters because i've glimpsed what cannot be seen but can only be felt.

  even though these moments are fleeting, somehow the memories become embedded.  

but how can you reconcile these extraordinary insights with the stark and very dark reality (to many) known as everyday existence?  

  the reality that we rise, we eat, we live, we are.

the (possible) reality that today might be our last day on earth.

  the (possible) reality that someone, somewhere, will do us harm?
there is a unruly savagery to this planet - kill or be killed; the weak will perish, the strong will survive.

  it is inherent not only in the animal/plant kingdom, but also in human beings.    

how is it that we continue to watch hopelessly, helplessly as people are brutally subjugated, tortured and slaughtered across the world?  
  vehemently being denied their natural right to live freely?
where is the outcry?  i only hear silence.
how is it that human monsters continue to thrive, caring nothing about the well-being of those they serve,
  but serving only to terrorize, subjugate?  
why this constant tug of war between good and evil?
 who will win out?
will it be good?
  will it be evil?
what is good?

  what is evil?

we have groups of individuals in this world who are solely bent on wiping others out.
  was it always this way?
yes, but not to the extent that i'm personally sensing it at the present time.      

  there are people in this world who are so consumed by hate for those who will not convert nor subvert their wills, their very souls, into accepting an intolerable and twisted belief (a perverse version of who should live          
  and who should die) based solely on what that particular individual believes that they are:  
hoisting their flag of intolerance and hate and using declination to decapitate.
  did you or i give them permission to do this?
of course not yet they are actively engaged in usurping the will of people all over the planet and will  
  not hesitate to step on my body to get to yours.  

---

think about where we (collectively) will all be fifty years from now.  

  it's not that far off.

is there really a global cabal that wishes only to enslave us all?

  to compartmentalize, dehumanize each and every one of us according to its deformed doctrine?
if so, are we willing to stand up to this rape of the human spirit, this cabal of contagion?
  their mayhem and lies are deceptively packaged.
if so, are we willing to stand up to and resist the attempts by those whose primary goal is subverting the very
 purpose of human existence which is to ultimately live together freely and harmoniously?
as one spirit.
  

  

  

  

  

    

  

      

  

About Us » The Federalist Society

About Us » The Federalist Society

It Matters to the Dead Men's Families, Hillary

It Matters To The Dead Men’s Families, Hillary

The Declaration of Independence

The soul of the American founding is located in the enduring political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of these principles, especially equality, is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern progressivism.

Equality means that nature ordains no one to be the ruler of any other person. Each human being is also equal in his natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are inalienable and possessed simply by virtue of being human.

Equality, liberty, and natural rights require that legitimate government be republican. The truth that all human beings are born free, equal, and independent means that a just government must be based on the consent of the governed—a consent which must be expressed through ongoing elections. The political theory of the Declaration of Independence requires that government secure the natural rights of the citizens through adopting and enforcing criminal laws; adopting and enforcing civil laws regarding property, family, education, and provision for the poor; and providing for national defense.

If the regime fails to operate according to these principles, the people have a right and duty to alter or abolish the government and establish a new government which will secure rights through the consent of the governed.

The people thus play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge.” A people that is not virtuous will not be able to perpetuate free government.

Modern liberalism uses the same language of “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something altogether different than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means that government must redistribute wealth to provide equal access to resources. This idea necessitates government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”

The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” threatens the whole of the American constitutional and moral order.

---

Hillsdale.edu

Aaron Swartz - From RSS to RIP

I feel I must weigh in on the untimely death of RSS founder, twenty-four year old, Aaron Swartz.

A young man, with so much promise who dared voice his concern against the government's attempts to control the Internet via SOPA and  PIPA.

Maybe an admirable attempt to control over the net piracy but did the government really think through the long-term ramifications of these two Acts or were they, once again, over zealous in presenting another piece of ill-begotten, ill-thought-out legislation?

In what I have read concerning Aaron's suicide it appears that he was unmercifully hounded by the government for downloading material from an MIT website in which this very same material was available to the public.

Something just doesn't add up, here.

This doesn't add up/compute other than considering that Aaron may have been so vocal, outspoken against  SOPA and PIPA that the government decided they would teach him a lesson.

I don't agree with hacking into a government website nor any website.

I'm not a fan of ANONYMOUS but I have to agree with their assessment that the United States has turned into a totalitarian country, overly-regulated and run by a bunch of tyrants.

I believe a full-scale, criminal investigation into this matter.

If the real reason Aaron took his life was because of hounding and harrassment by a bunch of government agencies and bureaucrats who did not approve of Aaron's opposition to SOPA and PIPA, then we all really need to take a step back and consider the dire consequences of what just happened.

I offer my condolences to Aaron's family and I hope they do not waiver in getting to the bottom of this matter.

Sign in Cairo’s Tahrir Square: ‘Obama you jerk, Muslim Brotherhoods are killing the Egyptians’

Sign in Cairo’s Tahrir Square: ‘Obama you jerk, Muslim Brotherhoods are killing the Egyptians’

Something Wondrous This Way Comes

Chinese: 天山; pinyin: Tiān Shān; literally "celestial mountains"

I have only just begun to live... 

I have only just begun to be able to glimpse the whole; not the pieces, like before.  

There is a wonderfully beautiful as yet to be revealed realm that surrounds all of us, enveloping mankind.    

At the present time we are scattered; we are shattered, like glass.

Broken and sharp shards, we lie like lifeless forms, scattered across an earthen floor.  

But I sense a newness...something coming, some type of unification, something indescribable in its implication(s), purity and dazzling in its beauty, its message.  

I have only just begun to live....

Video: Stricken Dolphin Asks Diver for Help

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
---
soule:  they've made this video hard to find.  click on Science and type in Dolphin.  Scroll down to find the video posted.  it's worth the trouble.

'Nuf Said

Ordered Liberty

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution
---
soule:  We are witnessing an overt attempt by the federal government to limit our rights under the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights, The United States Constitution.    

In view of this, I have posted the following link for additional information we may or may not know regarding the 2nd Amendment:  

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

I have selected only certain excerpts of this article I feel are relevant to the issue at hand (without being too wordy).  The entire article can be accessed at the above link.  

The underscoring you see below is my own.

This link will answer the question of why the anti-Federalists believed so strongly in Americans' right to keep and bear arms:  

"...stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule".

"The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right". 

"Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
another good source for information is:  www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

a. common law development of the right to keep and bear arms

The right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment; rather, this basic individual right, developed in England before this continent was colonized, pre-dated the constitution and was part of the common law heritage of the thirteen original colonies.

Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Id. at 144.[1] Clearly evident in this statement is Blackstone's recognition that the exercise of an individual's absolute rights could be imperiled by a standing army as well as by private individuals, a view supported by his observation that "Nothing ... ought to be more guarded against in a free state than making the military power ... a body too distinct from the people." Id. at 414. To prevent such an occurrence, Blackstone not only believed in the individual's right to have and use arms, but further believed that for its defense a nation should rely not on a standing army, but the citizen soldier. Plainly, for such a concept to be a reality, it was necessary that all able-bodied males possess and be capable of using arms.

Blackstone was not alone in his view that the common law recognized the individual's right to possess arms: in his Pleas of the (p.84)Crown, Hawkins noted that "every private person seems to be authorized by the Law to arm himself for [various] purposes." 1 William Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 28, Section 14, p. 171 (7th ed. 1795). In agreement with Blackstone was Sir Edward Coke who wrote that "the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons," 2 E. Coke Institutes of the Laws of England, 574 (Johnson & Warner, ed. 1812).

It was within this legal tradition of the individual's right to have and use arms for his own defense and self-preservation as well as to enable him to contribute to the common defense, that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was struck. The British, by attempting to seize large stores of powder and shot, sought to deny the Massachusetts colonists the ability to protect their absolute rights. The colonists retaliated by exercising their common law right to keep and bear arms, using the very arms which the British wished to render ineffective.[2] It is beyond question that prior to the Second amendment the common law recognized a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, subject only to a certain limited police power to regulate the bearing of arms so as not to terrify the good people of the land.4 Blackstone Commentaries 149.

b. the history of the second amendment

The Second amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

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.

The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.

One of the gravest decisions faced by the Framers of the Constitution was whether the federal government should be permitted to maintain a standing army. Because of their personal experiences in and prior to the Revolution, the Framers of the Constitution realized that although useful for national defense, a standing army was particularly inimical to the continued safe existence of those absolute rights recognized by Blackstone and generally inimical to personal freedom and liberty.

Unwilling, however, to forego completely the national defense benefits of a standing army, the Framers developed a compromise position. The federal government was granted the authority to "raise and support" an army, subject to the restrictions that no appropriation of money for the army would be for more than two years and civilian control over the army would be maintained. U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. Furthermore, knowing (p.85)that the militiaman or citizen soldier had made possible the success of the American Revolution for Independence,[3] the Framers recognized that a militia would provide the final bulwark against both domestic tyranny and foreign invasion. Congress, however, was given only limited authority over the militia; it could "govern ... [only] such part of the [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...," leaving to the states "the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ..." (emphasis added) U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

It is evident from the underscored language of Clause 16 that, in addition to that part of the militia over which the Constitution granted Congress authority, there exists a residual, unorganized militia that is not subject to congressional control. The United States Code, in Title 10, Section 311, continues to recognize the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia:

Good Question

HOW IS IT
THAT YOU NEED
A BACKGROUND CHECK
TO OWN A GUN
BUT NOT TO RUN
A COUNTRY?

A Radical President, a Radical Agenda

TYRANNY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER

          What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

          Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that the with a few strokes of his pin Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

          Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

          “1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

          What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates or fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone s a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

Michael Connelly

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

www.usjf.net

Constitutional Law Alliance

I Only Have Eyes For You

http://www.christianaction.org/

Liberal Lunacy (www.coiledsnake.com)

Jodie Foster Golden Globe speech drives audience to tears with intimate revelations

Jodie Foster Golden Globe speech drives audience to tears with intimate revelations

The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style

The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style

Mark Levin: "I Can Barely Contain My Fury At What Is Going On"

Mark Levin: "I Can Barely Contain My Fury At What Is Going On"

Diana West: Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

Diana West: Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

Think on This

What are We
If We don't have Connection
What are We
If We don't have Direction
---
soule:  There's so much more to Life than what we are taught to believe....

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.

FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre

FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre

Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration