 I am on the Resolutions Committee of the Moore County Republican Party. Our Committee has prepared a number of resolutions to be submitted for adoption at the March 30 Moore County GOP Convention to be held at the Sandhills Community College. One of our resolutions pertains to " Support for the U.S. Constitution". The process is in the midst of gathering feedback and input on our resolutions in preparation for the final Committee report at the Convention. We received input from a very prominent "mover and shaker" here in Moore County which I would like to share with you along with my responses. I will not divulge the identity of my "antagonist". But, I believe the exchange of ideas might provoke serious considerations and critical thinking of others in Moore County -- both Republicans and Independents. If any readers would care to share their thoughts and reactions to this short debate, I would be most interested. Bill Cochrane_____________________________Commentor:
"Everything looks good. However, please consider substituting the word 'unreasonable' for 'all' with regard to Constitution and regulations and law. For instance, free speech is always limited by libel, assembly is limited when it creates a violent riot. And we all agree that private persons should not have shoulder fired missiles. The true legal standard is 'compelling state interest' which is a higher test than 'unreasonable' but the former sounds too statist. Perhaps another phrase might be 'overreaching and unnecessary regulation and laws'." My Response:
"I understand your point, and I am somewhat – somewhat – sympathetic to it. I have heard the arguments you make about 'limitations' on rights before. But in making these arguments, we have allowed the Left to control the language and presentation of the issue. I would much rather argue that our right of free speech, which the Constitution says is not to be infringed (that means the right is not to be lessened, limited, or undermined in any way). But my rights must not 'break your leg or pick your pocket'. If, in exercising my rights, I do harm to another, then I am accountable for that harm. So my rights are not 'limited' – they are constrained by my self-responsibility and by accountability for the consequences of my actions.
As a legal professional, I am certain you will recognize the above is not simply a rhetorical difference, it is a fundamental one. The moment we begin allowing the government to pass laws infringing on our sacred Bill of Rights, that moment we begin to surrender and erode Liberty itself. And that is just what we have done for decades now! And under the progressive invention of 'case law' and 'legal precedent', once you infringe here, well then, you can infringe there, too – all 'reasonable' and 'fair', of course. All 'good common sense' infringements for the 'greater good'.
So, we all agreed that libel was bad and so we passed a law against libel. And then against other types of speech.... And we still argue about just what constitutes libel and slander.... Has it ever really been settled? And so the progressive infringements began....
Now, your example of freedom of assembly is a bit different. Assembly is not yet unlawful – although the government often tries to discourage and limit it using excuses of permitting, sanitation requirements, security requirements, liability insurance, etc. – even to the point where they make it nearly impossible to have an assembly. You know I’m not wrong or prevaricating here.... Just look what good ole Guv Bev used to do whenever the Tea Party wanted to have an assembly in Raleigh. It was ridiculous. Just look what the good federales always do when FreedomWorks or Glenn Beck wants to have an assembly in Washington D.C. You can have an assembly; it’ll just bankrupt you now....
But we haven’t banned assembly yet. Have we infringed on the right? I think so! But we didn’t amend the Bill of Rights. No, we have a more sneaky way of getting around that pesky 'shall not be infringed' language, don’t we? I, for one, think it’s time to stop allowing this. If a riot is bad and you make laws against violent rioting, hold me accountable if I break those laws. Don’t infringe on my right of assembly under the presumption that my assembly could conceivably somehow might trigger a riot....
And I humbly, but strongly, disagree with you that private persons 'should not have shoulder fired missiles'. That way of thinking once again buys right into the agenda of the Left, and it is just plain wrong. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, everyone understood that the muskets in private hands were the most modern 'military assault weapons' to be had. Citizens, farmers, private merchant ships could and did have cannons – the biggest, baddest, most advanced military weaponry of the time – equivalent in every way to those held by the standing army and navy. They could have these in any quantities that the private party could afford and wished to bear.
Indeed, Presidents Washington and Jefferson used private militia and hired seafaring privateers to fight against enemies on behalf of the federal government. They were every bit as well armed as the corresponding standing army and navy units. There was no intent on the part of the Framers to limit the right to bear arms – that’s why the Second Amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. Things stayed this way until the 20th century progressive movement, which managed to convince enough people that we stupid people just can’t be trusted with certain things and certain rights. So, in the name of 'good', 'reasonable', 'common sense', 'public safety' our Second Amendment rights really do need a bit of infringing.... And so, they did. And we have allowed it. Now after one progressive 'common sense' step after another after another... look where we find ourselves!
So, no, I do not agree – I never will agree – that I do not have the right to any arms I can afford and wish to bear. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about protecting myself from a burglar, although that is a really good side benefit. No. The Second Amendment is about resisting and protecting against the rise of a tyrannical government. That is its purpose. And to do that, the People should be as well armed as the mercenaries which will be sent against the People by the Tyrant.
I decry that we have allowed the government to infringe ALL of our rights in spite of the Bill of Rights. And if those infringements were really what the People actually wanted, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights should have been properly amended through the process established for that very purpose. We have erred in allowing the legislators, the regulators, and the corrupted courts to infringe and invent false new authorities through 're-interpretation'. I am sick of it!
And 'compelling state interest' is, indeed, a statist concept and an excuse used by big government rogues to shred the Constitution. As for the word 'unreasonable', I must ask: "Who is to decide what is ‘unreasonable’?" Are we going to leave that up to the same 'evolution' of case precedence in the courts? Are we going to let the same corrupted Congress or Administration define and redefine that word for us to suit their own desires? Who will be the arbiter of 'reasonableness' and 'unreasonableness'?
What bothers me about your suggestion is that it accepts the notion that our government CAN at its own discretion infringe my God-given rights in the name of someone’s idea of 'reasonableness'. That gives them a 'blank check'."
Commentor:
Most of 20th Century Constitutional law was concerned with expansion of civil liberties in light of making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States... This included deciding that one could publish an ad critical of an Alabama Sheriff. Often the Court got it wrong such as when it found new rights like a "right to privacy".
But, by overturning state laws like the Illinois law which prevented a Nazi march,the Court mostly spent the 20th Century expanding free speech and overruling state laws which limited peaceable assembly. All this was based upon ignoring the limitation the founders placed upon the first amendment and using the 14th Amendment to make that rifling. It can be argued that the last founding father was John A Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment whose goal it was to bind the Bill of Rights to the States.
It took about 100 years of Supreme Court decisions to accomplish this.
Something to think about. My Response:
"I’m glad that we agree on much. However, alas! I differ again in my views on the 20th century 'expansion of civil liberties'. Certainly that statement is true with regard to civil rights of blacks and the persecution they faced (primarily from the Democrat Party) following the War Between the States. The Fourteenth Amendment was put into place to overcome those gross injustices.
Interesting to note, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified through the Constitutional amendment and ratification process – not through legal caveat in the courts or legislative/administrative end runs around the Constitution.
Where I disagree with your view of history is that, yes, the courts – up to and including the Supreme Court – proceeded to weaken and erode federalism. The states were meant to have powers not granted to the federal government. The federal government was never meant to steal those powers and authorities from the states. If I didn’t like the laws and governance of my current state, I could move to another. But the courts and other branches of the federal government have conspired to destroy federalism and build an all-powerful central state government. They bribed short-sighted state and local governments through grants and favors to accept rules and strings which gradually transferred power to the central government. All this transfer of power and authority – in the guise and pretense of making us 'freer' and 'safer' and 'more efficient', accomplished quite the opposite.
I do not agree that the courts had our best interests as their true motive. That hundred years of which you speak was the hundred years of progressivism, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and his Bullmoose Party, ripening with WW and FDR, and culminating in the sorry likes of Jimmy Carter and Barry Soetoro. This court-ordered erosion of the Constitution and federalism only abetted the progressives in the other federal branches in their quest for total power. It was and is an abomination which has brought our nation to the brink of totalitarianism, at which we find ourselves today.
Yes, I agree, the courts and federal government 'ignored the (Constitutional) limitation the founders placed' – indeed learned to disregard all the Constitutional limitations with the help of the corrupt courts – interpreting the 'Commerce Clause' and now, with Justice Roberts’ twisted and perverted reinterpretations, particularly of the Sixteenth Amendment, the 'taxing authority' – to do virtually ANYTHING they want.
I owe the courts no gratitude. The 'progress' of which you speak was toward tyranny."
 The hopelessly biased Carol Costello was rattled to the core yesterday when South Carolina sheriff Al Cannon gave her a lesson in Constitutional law. He also exposed Costello for the blithering hypocrite that both she and most of the media are. My guess is that Costello and her producers forgot that country doesn’t mean dumb. Cannon's demeanor, intelligence, education, and command of the facts ran circles around the left-wing morning anchor. But why is Carol Costello, of all people, upset with what Cannon is doing? All he's doing is following President Obama's lead. After all, it was Obama who set a new media-accepted precedent that says it's okay for him to decide when to uphold and enforce our nation's laws and when he will not do so. Obama has openly and publicly stated -- to much media acclaim -- that he will not enforce certain parts of our immigration laws or the Defense of Marriage Act. He doesn’t agree with those laws and therefore he will not enforce them. Well, okay then. Who knew you could do that? I didn’t. But now that Obama has shown us the way, I say it is racist not to follow his example. Or… Perhaps, there's a caveat when it comes to not enforcing laws you disagree with. Perhaps, this is wrong if you’re not Obama? Perhaps, this is wrong if Carol Costello and CNN like the law you’re choosing not to enforce? Perhaps Carol Costello and CNN are a bunch of left-wing propagandists wholly on board the current Narrative Train that says Obama can do no wrong and his opponents can do nothing right? And perhaps, because of that, because Obama is now in a bubble where the media hold him accountable for nothing and protect him from everything, our democracy is in all kinds of danger. John Nolte P.S. I'm looking for video of CNN and Costello's outrage when Obama actually broke the law regarding recess appointments. I'll let you know if any exists. ___________________________________
John, I agree with what you've said. However, I feel that it's vital to point out the major, extremely important difference between what Obama and Holder have done and what the good South Carolina sheriff is doing. And there is a vitally important difference.
Obama and Holder choose which laws they will enforce and when they will enforce laws based on what they want to do -- based on their own agendas and how they "feel" about those laws.
The sheriff, on the other hand, says that he will base his decision on the Constitutionality of federal laws. He says he will take into account what his state Attorney General says about the federal law/regulation and what legal opinions are coming from the judicial system. And he will also take into account his own reading and understanding of the U.S. Constitution. And only if the federal law or regulation is un-Constitutional will he refuse to enforce it in defense of, in this case, the Second Amendment.
There is a vast moral and ethical difference between those two examples. The good sheriff is being ethical and principled. The Administration is being exactly the opposite.
The sheriff took the following Oath of Office upon being elected to his position:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected, (or appointed), and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God."
He is again vowing to uphold his Oath of Office. This is what an honest and honorable sheriff -- or any other elected official -- would do.
CNN Anchor Carol Costello should read and understand the Constitution herself. First, the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms. Article 1, Section 8 lists the specific areas where the federal government has authority to make laws and regulations. There is nothing in Article 1, Section 8 which gives the federal government authority to regulate individuals' possession or use of their arms. Amendment 10 reserves to the states or to the People all other rights and authorities not specifically granted to the federal government.
All of the new proposals being floated in our out-of-control federal government are un-Constitutional. Lawyers and appointed judges don't have authority (look at Article III of the Constitution) to reinterpret the clear and concise words of the Constitution.
Thank God for good men like Sheriff Al Cannon!
Bill Cochrane
 As we go into the debates and fights that will happen in the second term of Barack Obama, there is one word we must remember. bWe must remember this word and we must tell everyone about it.
This one word is the defining word as to why we fight. It is the end game of statism.
What is this word?
The word is Democide.
Odds are you have never heard of this word.b That is really unfortunate. bOnce you have heard the definition of this word you will want to share it with everyone you know.
What is Democide?
Democide was the leading cause of death in the 20th Century. b Experts estimate that over 250 million people died in the last century because of Democide.
Democide is murder of a person by the state.
Millions died in various genocides. These include the Armenia genocide, the “final solution” of the Nazis. The Soviets under Lenin and especially under Stalin killed millions. Chairman Mao killed millions, as did the North Vietnamese and Pol Pot made Cambodia the killing fields in the late 70’s. The list goes on and on.
The common factor all of these Democides have is an overwhelmingly powerful state. These are states where the people are subjects of the state, not citizens. These are states where the rights of the state trump whatever rights the state has given its subjects. These are states that do not believe that men are created with inalienable rights.
Liberals and even some conservatives react with disdain when I talk about something like that.
Their reaction is always the same.
“It can’t happen here.”
Yes it can.
Ever hear of Executive Order 9066? No, Executive Order 9066 is not part of some strange conspiracy theory involving Barack Obama. In fact, executive Order 9066 has nothing to do with Barack Obama. It has to do with the man who became the closest thing to a dictator the United States has ever had.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
On February 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. It ordered the forcible relocation of Japanese Americans and their internment in camps. From early 1942 until the end of the War, Japanese Americans were held in detention camps.
It can’t happen here?
It already has.
Barack Obama’s goal, which he has stated repeatedly, is a fundamental transformation of America.
And that is why Obama is so dangerous.
America has been unique among the nations. Our Constitution did not simply organize our government. It proclaimed to the world that Americans are a free people. It told the world that government is limited and government exists to serve the people. Our Constitution shouted out that the rights of a free people trump the rights of government.
While our Founding Fathers may not have been familiar with the term Democide, they understood the tyrannical power of the state and set forth a government that would make that kind of tyranny impossible.
Barack Obama and the Party of Treason have been doing their best to change the relationship between the citizen and the state. They want to change the relationship to one much more familiar to the rest of the world. They want to change Americans from citizens to subjects.
The change they want to make is a full assault on the Bill of Rights. A free people have the right to bear arms and a free people can use those arms to defeat tyranny. A free people, protected by their own weapons and with the protections of a Constitutional Republic have little to fear from government and the chances of Democide are almost non-existent.
But when the left succeeds in eliminating the protections of a Constitutional Republic, including the right to bear arms, the road to Democide stands before us.
Tyrants of the past engaged in Democide because they could. Their opponents lacked the ability to fight back because they had no rights. Tyrants were successful because their people were subjects not citizens. Tyrants succeeded because their nation was not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It was simply the government of the tyrant.
Democide is a word that should be on everyone’s lips. If you do not think it can happen here, you are foolish. Democide happens when liberty dies. The Party of Treason has been working very hard to bring about the death of liberty and freedom.
Once liberty and freedom are taken, you are left with tyranny.
After that, the leap to Democide is not far behind.
Judson Phillips
 On March 2, 2012, I gave a legal analysis of HR347/S1794 (which included some links to frightening government abuses) and how it unquestionably violates the First Amendment. Upon hearing numerous reports the following week, I realized that the people are not getting the whole truth. For those who have not read my blog, please do so, but here is a brief summary. HR 347 and S 1794, the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings. This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill. Reasonable people understand that restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions. However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to simply DISRUPT the ORDERLY CONDUCT of government. The violator doesn’t have to be on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the so-called business. The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be “roving” and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they go. The language could be interpreted to refer to an official who is eligible for Secret Service protection and not protected by them at the moment of the alleged violation. How long before we hear the argument that federal officials are “protected” by secret service even if secret service is not present at the time? The bottom line is: Your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble - is now a federal crime.In one particular report on this bill, Fox News focuses the blame almost entirely on the President. The report even leads off with the headline, “Suppressing Free Speech? President Signs Anti-protest Bill.” The report includes an interview with Judge Napolitano where he gives a brief review of the potential impact of this bill. The entire focus is again on Obama’s signing of this bill and what he will do with it. The fact is that there is a group of individuals that played a much more significant role in this and it is becoming one of the greatest cover-ups of going on today. I will now do what no one else seems to have the guts to do. I will tell you their names. Are you ready? A quick look at the roll call for this bill will show you that only 3 Republicans in the House voted against this Constitutional atrocity: Ron Paul (R-Tx), Paul Broun (R-Ga), and Justin Amish (R-Mi). That means that every other “conservative” House member that thought it important enough to show up and vote, voted for this bill and against the Constitution. Who was your “Tea Party” favorite in 2010? Who did you elect on the promise to uphold the Constitution and Constitutional Principles? Was it perhaps Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, or Joe Walsh? “I am a patriot,” they say. Yet, how did they vote when the Constitution was on the line? What about the Senate? You don’t have to work hard to decipher the roll call for S1794 because the vote in favor of putting government over the Constitution was UNANIMOUS! Again, who was your “Tea Party” favorite in Senate? Perhaps Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson or, dare I say it, Marco Rubio? How will they answer when you question them on this? Will you hear, “security over liberty” arguments? Will they tell you that the threat against our representatives deserves greater consideration than our Constitutionally protected rights? One vote is no big deal right? Maybe, but some votes are not inconsequential when they destroy the very safeguards of Liberty. But it is not one vote; there is a pattern forming here. Look at the roll call for HR 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This is the bill that authorizes indefinite detention of US Citizens and repealed the law against bestiality in the military. Do not believe the lies from Congress, this bill does authorize indefinite detention and if you still don’t understand it, watch this legal analysis video, it will help you. It is a direct assault on our rights protected in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. In the roll call for the Constitution-shredding bill HR 1540, we find some familiar names: Allen West, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh among other “Tea Party” favorites. You see only 43 “conservatives” voted against this bill and for the Constitution. But what about the Senate side? Did your “Tea Party” favorite vote to indefinitely detain US Citizens? It is quite likely, because only 3 Senators knew enough about the Constitution to vote against giving the President that kind of power. That means once again Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio voted against the Constitution! What about the debt ceiling vote? Who were the “Tea Party” members in the house that voted to send our children into financial slavery? Ooops, there we have those names again… and guess who is 3 for 3? Allen West. And finally, what about the Patriot Act? You know that act that gives the federal government the authority to seize property, records, and even people without a warrant that complies with the 4th Amendment and then hold them in violation of the 5th Amendment? Whose names will we find on that roll call? Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh, among others. When the House voted again on this bill, only one member from this list changed his vote, Allen West. What about the Senate side? Only Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against this bill and for the Citizens of America. Yes, you guessed it, that means that Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio are all in favor of defeating the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution. To summarize, we have seen direct attacks on our Constitution perpetrated NOT by Obama alone, but aided and abetted by our Congress. HR 347/S1794 is a direct assault on our First Amendment. Sections 1021 and 1022 are violent attacks on our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. And the Patriot Act, the beginning of it all, shreds our right to be secure in our persons, property, and papers, all in the name of security. What security would that be, by the way? The security of knowing that the President is devising secret law and secret legal interpretations of these laws to create further Constitutional abuses as uncovered in the letter to Eric Holder from Senators Wyden and Udall! This battering of our Constitutionally protected rights does not rest on the shoulders of the progressives; nor, does the responsibility belong to one man. The destruction of our Constitution rests firmly on the heads of the men and women in Congress – “R” AND “D” – Senate AND HOUSE! Those we trusted with the Liberty of our children have betrayed us on the highest level. Which one of these men and women do you want to be president or vice president? Which one of these men and women do you want in charge of being the guardian of Liberty for your children? When we elected them, they were given fair warning that they MUST PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. They accepted that charge and THEY HAVE FAILED miserably. Are YOU willing to stand by your word and make these traitors unemployed? Are you willing to make the sacrifice necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty for our posterity? Look at these roll calls. Find out who voted Against the Constitution and DO NOT SUPPORT THEM. Let me remind you: These are not the principles our founders died for! These are not the principles for which Crispus Attacks was shot in the streets, or for which Richard Stockton was tortured, or for which Thomas Nelson Jr. destroyed his own home. These are not the principles about which Phyllis Wheatley or Mercy Otis Warren wrote. These are not the principles for which Washington’s men left bloody footprints in the snow! This despicable, spineless group of egotists in OUR government is a disgrace to the legacy of Liberty! They must all be dismissed at the earliest opportunity! Our founders would have never allowed the government’s desire for orderly function to outweigh the right of the people to speak, assemble, or air their grievances! Use your voice while you still have it! Build your influence while you still can! We must continue to rally the forces of Liberty! We must continue to stand against corruption! We must continue to expose the spineless and the hypocrite! We must inform the ignorant and fire the incompetent! We must not retreat, we must not surrender! Liberty is worth the sacrifice! KrisAnn Hall
 The assault on the Freedom of Religion protection of the First Amendment is underway under ObamaCare and endless lawsuits. The National Defense Authorization Act gave the Administration authority to arrest any U.S. citizen anywhere without charges and to hold them indefinitely without right of habeas corpus, without trial. Now, the Congress has authorized the arrest of any citizen on federal charges with an imprisonment of 10 years who "disrupts" the conduct of business in any location or event involving any person under Secret Service protection whether or not the person is aware that the person is on site and regardless of the intent of the citizen. The effect is a chilling restraint on First Amendment rights to protest or petition officials for grievances. The kind of town hall questioning of Congressional figures we saw in 2010 will now result in arrests -- not on misdemeanors, but on serious Federal charges resulting potentially in long term imprisonment. Slowly, but surely, our Congress is giving the Administration all the tools it needs to suppress all opposition, to imprison its "enemies", to "disappear" citizens a la third world dictatorships, and to squelch free speech. The House of Representatives passed this act on February 27 and sent it on to Obama for final ratification. The Senate passed the bill earlier, so it is about to become Law. Well, at least our "conservative" representatives that Moore County supported in 2010 opposed this tyrannical act -- right? Wrong! Both Renee Ellmers and Howard Coble voted FOR this monstrosity! The voting record can be viewed here. The text of the bill can be read here. Read good analyses of this tyrannical action here and here and here. If we do not replace those in Congress and this Administration who are moving to enslave us, then I hope all of you are ready for servitude and obedience to the Glorious New State of USSA! Bill Cochrane
 I'm on the Resolutions Committee for the Moore County Republican Party. We met today. We discussed resolutions -- obviously! Of course the NDAA came up. Shock! Only two of us on the committee were aware of it! The others shook their heads and admitted they had never heard of it! Alarming. I explained it with the other committee member knowledgeable on the matter. It cast a pall on my day. Really.I have posted on it nine times here: First time, second time, third time, fourth time, fifth time, sixth time, seventh time, eighth time, ninth time. This issue has ignited everyone -- who is awake -- across the entire political spectrum. From the far left to the far right, those who are paying attention have risen up to condemn this breathtaking overreach and un-Constitutional tyrannical act. Even the Administration-complicit "mainstream" media has been forced to report (albeit not vigorously) and to condemn the act. Finally, President Obama had to take a political step backwards by issuing a " waiver" for U.S. Citizens on American soil on Leap Year Day. A weak, unconvincing ploy which should satisfy no one. But it shows the extent of the backlash. And yet, all but two of us on the Resolutions Committee -- who are among the most "active" Republicans in the county -- had never even heard of this! I am devastated.Please! Wake up your friends, family, and neighbors! We are on the threshold of losing our country, our Liberty, and our way of life! If you do not help us save it, we are lost! Bill Cochrane
 The Catholic Church is now standing tall against ObamaCare -- and particularly against the Administration's attempt to force them to violate their religious principles and doctrines regarding abortion, contraception, and sterilization in clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I am angry at the Catholic Church, but I will stand with them. They are (finally) in the right, and the assault on the Catholic Faith is an assault on all of us and all that we hold dear. The Administration is pure evil, and a great many people, especially the Catholics should have realized this a lot sooner. My anger with the Catholic Church is that they, for the most part, supported the "Affordable Healthcare Act" a.k.a. ObamaCare. The Church and the Council of Bishops supported it during the Congressional debates. They collaborated in the construction of the abomination. Only when it became clear to them that the " Conscience Clause" would not be honored by the demonic Administration did the Council of Bishops finally, belatedly decide to oppose passage. But even then, the Catholic Health Association still lauded and supported passage of ObamaCare, as did many other Catholic organizations. And moreover, when the House of Representatives, flush with the new Republican majority, passed the ObamaCare repeal measure in 2011 after the historic 2010 elections, guess who refused to support repeal? That's right! The Council of Bishops refused to support repeal and argued for keeping the Un-Constitutional abomination! So, let's get this straight right now, right up front. The Catholic Church: ● Supported and contributed to initial passage of ObamaCare. ● The Council of Bishops only removed their support when it became clear that the Administration would not exempt the Church from any requirements to which the Bishops objected. ● But many of the Catholic institutions unabashedly supported ObamaCare even over the Council of Bishops' objections. ● But now that the Administration is sticking it to the Catholic Church, they are only now squealing and objecting. ● They oppose having to abide by portions of ObamaCare to which they object but THEY WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO LET THE GOVERNMENT STICK IT TO THE REST OF US! They didn't care a whit about the objections of other faiths. They didn't give a damn about the fact that the Government was trampling the Constitution. They weren't concerned whatsoever that the Government was engaging in a Socialist transformation of the United States. No they didn't care about these things at all as long as they would be exempted from the parts of the abomination that THEY didn't like. How condemnably short sighted and self-centered was that approach?! This is why I am angry at the Catholic Church. If the Catholics had stood up more with and for the rest of us -- not just for their own precious principles but for others' as well, we would not be facing these abominations today. But they didn't. And we are. So, it is ironic that the Catholics are the first ones the Government has come for.... If I were as myopic and self-centered as the Catholics have behaved, I would simply laugh and say they are getting just what they deserve. But friends, foes, and fellow citizens -- we cannot do that. We must stand with the Catholic Church. The Administration is assaulting all Faiths and our supreme law of the land, our Constitution. Both are treasures that we must protect and preserve. If the Government succeeds in damaging the Catholic Church, who will be next? No one will be safe. It is time to take our stand and not yield one more millimeter to this corrupt government. This is why I will squelch my anger at the Catholic Church, and I will stand as one with them. I will not forget what they have done, but I will stand without yielding as one with the Catholics. And I plead with you to do the same. I am so glad to hear church pastors finally standing up and speaking out against this assault on the Faith, on our Constitution, on our Liberty, and on our culture. On February 5, 2012 Father Sammie Maletta delivered a Homily at St. John the Evangelist Parish in St. John, Indiana. This Homily addressed how President Obama is threatening our Religious Freedom and declaring war with the Catholic Church. Listen and rise up! Bill Cochrane
 American Progress The principle of eminent domain has been around since the pioneering of the West. Under Andrew Jackson, the government promoted the concept of "Manifest Destiny" to justify all manner of atrocities. The claiming and seizure of lands led to the formalizing of the " eminent domain" laws of the 20th century. These laws began as the "right" to seize private property for "public use" in support of the "greater good". So, for government projects such as canals, then railroads, then roads, then "common carriers" (e.g. power lines, pipelines, toll roads) and then parks and "national monuments" -- the government established its "right" to seize private property for "public use". The saving grace which at least made this law palatable to most citizens was that, at least, the government had to pay what was appraised to be "prevailing market rates" for the property seized under eminent domain. There was "just" compensation for the taking of private property. The Founders' principle of protection of private property was largely secure, although there were case of abuse. However, the taste of private property seizure was so sweet to government that the practice was "progressively" expanded. The Federal Government now seizes huge swaths of private property to create new or expanded "national parks", "wildlands/wilderness preserves", and "national monuments". But even these atrocities were insufficient to quell government appetites. Federal, state, and local governments began seizing private property for "economic redevelopment" -- seizing "depressed" or "blighted" properties and handing them over to developers to "redevelop" into "more productive" and more "beneficial" uses for the "greater good". Abuses grew in state after state, such as Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and, yes, of course, California. Even some town Historic Commissions have been given the right to invoke " eminent domain" in their zeal to "preserve", as in Edwardsville, Illinois, for example. Protestations grew over the use of the law for "redevelopment" or "urban renewal" until a case reached the Supreme Court in 2005. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government can Constitutionally apply the doctrine of eminent domain in cases of redevelopment and urban renewal. The result in many states has now been a backlash with states passing laws or state constitutional amendments to prevent these abuses. Unfortunately, NC is not among them, and the John Locke Foundation has published a great document on what should be done. Read or download it here.A bill was introduced in Congress in 2011 and revised this year, 2012, to address the problem. H.R. 1433 has been re-introduced in the House and is scheduled to come up for vote soon. This bill would protect private property from seizure by state or local governments only to be handed over to another private individual or developer for "redevelopment". It would protect our private property and property rights against many of the types of governmental abuse that we have witnessed in recent times. Unfortunately, it would not protect private property against government seizure of private property rights for "environmental reasons", for "habitat protections", or for "preservation/conservation" purposes. Thus, it does not go far enough to stop the out of control Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, etc. from seizing or eroding private property rights -- which they do without any compensation to the injured property owner. But it is a great step forward to return rationality, Liberty, and rule of law to this country. I urge you to contact your members of Congress and tell them to support and to vote for H.R. 1433. Bill Cochrane
This federal government is in all-out assault mode on private property rights. It is using everything from the EPA, to the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, to the Wildlands Project, to Agenda 21, and to, in this case, obscure outdated licensing restrictions to confiscate private property. This is happening all over the country, including locally. For the latest travesty, read about the Missouri case. Bill Cochrane
A number of articles have appeared in the past week about this issue. In case you haven't been watching the latest encroachment on your liberty in Washington, I thought I ought to call your attention to this. You should be aware, anyway, since this means, as you'll read, that your ISP must record and store all your private data, web destinations, purcase information, etc. and make it available upon request to "authorities" ― in case your skimming, that means without a warrant!
Even if you have "nothing to hide" ― which I'm certain is the case ― this makes your data vulnerable to hacking, discovery, and abuse. I recommend getting a VPN from a company who (a) is not your ISP and (b) is not in the ISP business. You may also want to start using anonymizer proxies. Not that hard if you do a little bit of research.
Bill Cochrane Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that makes the online activity of every American available to police and attorneys upon request under the guise of protecting children from pornography. The Republican-majority sponsored bill is called the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. It is a deceitfully misnamed bill.
|
RSS Feed