Archive for December, 2009

In Order to Promote the General Welfare

Posted: 12/30/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011
“In Order to . . . promote the general Welfare” is one of the six purposes stated in the first paragraph of the Constitution, placed before its first Article in what we call its Preamble. The following are the specific provisions that are for the welfare of all, not just some and are genuinely general.

What are called “welfare programs” cannot be justified as for all, rather than just some, hence cannot be justified under “general welfare.” In fact, the “General Welfare Clause” in the body of the Constitution, much less in its Preamble, does not in fact expand Constitutional powers of the United States at all, since it is put in the context of very general categories for which “taxes, duties, imposts and excises” may be laid [legally imposed] and collected.

The first sentence of the Article One, Section which is the primary place where legislative powers are defined, lists three categories of expenditures which are the only legitimate reasons for collecting “taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” They are the following:

  1. “to pay the debts” [… of the United States];
  2. [to …] “provide for the common defence” [… of the United States];
  3. [to … provide for …] “general welfare of the United States;”

All the places where you read “provide,” you might as well as well put “pay.”

The sentence in Section 8 or Article I that refers to the general welfare is given in its entirety below:

Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;

The harmony secured by a more perfect union, a common defence adequately provided for, the establishment of justice, the insurance of domestic tranquillity, securing liberty—all certainly conduce to the general welfare. I have decided to exclude from the list all these plus provisions relating to international and Indian relations, relations between the United States and the States already existing, relations between the Branches of the United States government, election provisions and other organizational rules, and of course the above already cited portion of Art. I, Sec. 8. Every attempt has been made to make the Preamble goal lists non-overlapping.

Any parts of the Constitution not listed under any of the Preamble goals will be listed separately. By looking at this remaining list of provisions, you will be able to decide, how well those six general purposes listed in the Preamble serve to subsume all the power or how well I have done in discerning their application.

Article I

Section 8.

… To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce … among the several States, … To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, … To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

… To establish post-offices and post-roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; …

.. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article IV

Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; …

Amendment 14

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …

Posted 2009-12-27 12:53 AM (#31108) By: BraveLad
Here’s the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, with the six (6) purposes numbered, just before Article 1, Section 1

We the People of the United States, in Order to

  1. form a more perfect Union,
  2. establish Justice,
  3. insure domestic Tranquility,
  4. provide for the common defence,
  5. promote the general Welfare, and
  6. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
    our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

Article 1

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Link to the transcript of the original U.S. Constitution:

Posted 2009-12-27 3:26 AM (#31110 – in reply to #31108) By: Savvy
Let’s see if I have understood.  Is this correct?

The preamble to the constitution states the six (6) purposes for which the constitution was written.

You have analyzed the U.S. Constitution and assigned each element to one of the six (6) purposes it was designed to fulfill.

Since everything in any of the other five (5) categories also contributes to the General Welfare, you’ve assigned elements of the constitution to that category ONLY if they contribute to none of the other purposes of the constitution.

Excluded from consideration were matters related to ” … international and Indian relations, relations between the United States and the States already existing, relations between the Branches of the United States government, election provisions and other organizational rules, and of course the above already cited portion of Art. I, Sec. 8.”

After completing all the categorizing, the only elements of the constitution left for the category of General Welfare were the ones listed in your post:

Article I

Section 8.

… To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce … among the several States, … To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, … To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

… To establish post-offices and post-roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; …

.. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article IV

Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; …

Amendment 14

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …

I’d be really interested to see how each element of the constitution was categorized in your analysis.  Do you plan to post the elements that were assigned to each of the other five (5) purposes, as well?

I think that would provide a great framework for those of us not all that familiar with the constitution to begin to understand its components … that is, assuming my understanding of the project you’ve completed was correct.

Posted 2009-12-27 4:47 AM (#31111 – in reply to #31110) By: Savvy
So then when you say the General Welfare Clause

does not in fact expand Constitutional powers of the United States at all,

is that b/c General Welfare is a super-category primarily composed of elements from the other five (5) categories … with very few components unique to General Welfare, alone?

Posted 2009-12-27 4:58 AM (#31112 – in reply to #31111) By: Savvy
(It appears there were prior posts in this series I missed reading the last few days.)
Posted 2009-12-27 5:18 AM (#31113 – in reply to #31112) By: Savvy

I have already posted “a more pefect union,” “common defense,” “domestic tranquillity,” and of course “general welfare.” I have a start on “establish justice”  and “secure the blessings of liberty” which I hope to post shortly. Then I need to post the other categories not covered.

Then I will go over a copy of the Constitution plus amendments and color highlight all the mutually exclusive categories. At that point I will see how well I have kept them non-overlapping and how complete they are. I may even come up with general phraseology for the categories not included in the six Preamble goals which the framers could as well have included at the outset.

I listed no provisions under “more perfect union” because anything which makes our second Constitution better than the first, which was the Articles of Confederation could have been included. Too long, too controversial to be of much use.

Markham (BraveLad)

Posted 2009-12-28 12:59 PM (#31153 – in reply to #31111) By: BraveLad

Essentially yes. The Preamble “general welfare” clause describes a very general category, that is general enough to include some or some aspects of the other Preamble goals. Of course any mere goal does not expand power at all. So I conclude that no Preamble goal does either. If I understand Tom correctly, he does not agree with this, although I would like to see him come forward with a particular instance that does not open the door to all sorts of abuses.

But the second “general welfare” phrase in the body of the Constitution, is only one of the categories for which tax-raised funds may be Constitutionally expended. Since only enumerated powers or those necessary and proper to them in the case of legislative powers are Constitutional powers, we must find a debt, a defense or a general welfare justification for it. Hence if it is not debt repayment or defence realted, it must be something for the “general welfare.” So this category is a limit (although not a very strong one), and not, repeat not, a grant of power!

BraveLad (Markham Robinson, Vice Chairman)

Posted 2009-12-28 1:10 PM (#31155 – in reply to #31112) By: BraveLad
It is a Good thing the founders didn’t say ,.. Establish the General Welfare?

Imagine the mess we would be in,…

Posted 2009-12-28 2:00 PM (#31157 – in reply to #31155) By: gcsteven

If they had used the most forceful possible verbs it would have made no difference. All the Preamble goals are the objects of the prepositional phrase “in Order to.”  That makes them purposes. Purposes can’t be used to grant powers. General purposes can’t be used practically, either because we can’t tell what they mean clearly enough, or they grant sweeping powers dangerous to free men—another sort of “practicality.” At any rate, I will go over the verbs used and see after I have completed the lot and how appropriate each verb was to what was actually ordained and established or in other words implemented by the Constitution.

However, the Founders could have said “in order to arbitrarily and forecfully impose mandatory morning callisthenics on the entire population” and if there was nothing about that in the document, especially in the presence of the Tenth Amendment, there would be no power delegated to the United States corresponding to it. In that case the purpose would have been so specific, that we would be in little doubt whether the rest of the document (which was all and only what was being ordained and established) succeeded in its stated purpose, but the stated purpose would still not have granted any power to realize that purpose. Do you agree?


Posted 2009-12-28 11:52 PM (#31185 – in reply to #31157) By: BraveLad
Maybe this is not the proper thread, but it would be like sending troops to take over a state, under a specious “in order to from a more perfect union” reasoning.
Posted 2009-12-29 12:16 AM (#31186 – in reply to #31185) By: FreeByrd

In certain circumstances the United States is obligated and enabled by specific provisions to intervene at the State level, but only in certain circumstances and by certain means. I listed relevant specific provisions under “In Order to insure domestic tranquillity” thread. These are the actual grants to the United States of power (as the purpose to insure domestic tranquilly in the Preamble is not) and in one case of responsibility. See these provisions below:

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power …

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Second Amendment: 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. So the Congress may make legislation to to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The language of Section 8 of Article I only says “provide,” but Congress has only legislative power beyond a very few items, where it exercises very severely circumscribed judicial power (impeachments and issues related to qualifications of members to name two), and virtually non-existent executive power. So its “provisions” are legislative here.

If an insurrection was successful, then the militia of a State could be called forth to overthrow that regime, that is if the insurrection was against a non-republican form of government. The United States has an actual duty, not just a power or equivalently a right, to guarantee a republican form of government. So it follows that if the militia act on their own to guarantee such a republican form of government for themselves, the United States by opposing that would be violating that responsibility. It takes time to recognize the situation where a non-republican form of government has arisen in a State and react to that. The militia of a State is not obliged to wait for the United States to fulfill that responsibility, before acting.

But what is the militia? It is the entire armed body of the citizenry, whose right to “keep and bear arms” shall not be infringed according to the Second Amendment. (There will be a separate thread on the militia.) Infringed by whom? The United States, the State government, both? Foreign nations? The United Nations? By a fellow citizen? Good question. A separate thread will address the issue of scope of application of various sections of the Constitution.

The power of Congress in regard to the militia is enormous and largely unexercised. Note that Congress may “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

So if it would do so, Congress could provide for (make a law) to appropriate funds for arming the militia. It could make a law to “organize” the militia, i.e. make rank structures, specify tables of organization and equipment, reporting and command responsibilities of elements of such structures, etc. It could do these things for not just the National Guards as I presume it has done, but for the entire body of able-bodied citizens, arming and organizing them. It could insist as the Second Amendment does that all eligible members of the able-bodied citizens, have not only a right, but a duty “to keep and bear arms!” Such a well-organized body is according to the Second Amendment “necessary to the security of a free State”—not a meaning familiar to fans of the Second Amendment!

What I am saying here is that the United States can Constitutionally and should (although it is not Constitutionally obligated to do so) make us like Switzerland, where participation in defence of the State, Nation and locality is not voluntary, but mandatory.

But once you realize this, you can understand the threat posed by Obama’s goal of creating a militia is as well-armed and trained as the regular Army. The trouble with that is not that it is un-Constitutional, but that nothing that an un-Constitutional regime does is Constitutional!

If the office of President is vacant for instance, no law creating such a “well regulated militia” is a law at all, much less an un-Constitutional one! If such a militia is in the service of a national regime that is not a republic anymore, for it habitually ignores that which makes it a republic, its Constitution, then it is anti-Constitutional. It is a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which the expanded Presidential oath asserts is a duty of the President to oppose, but no duty of one who is not President, because unqualified to hold that office.

We live in perilous times my fellow-citizens, when to speak the truth and to uphold the Constitution may shortly be treated as treason. Let us then resolve to work while it is yet day!


Secession: The Hope for Humanity

Posted: 12/30/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

by Russell D. Longcore
by Russell D. Longcore
Recently by Russell D. Longcore: Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu

In this article, I will define secession and make a case why secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to further the cause of human liberty and functional governance.

What is secession?

“Secession” is broadly defined as “the act of withdrawing formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.” We are defining it specifically as the action of a state to cease its participation in the United States of America and for that state to create itself as a new independent, sovereign nation.

The American Revolution of 1776 was, by definition, an act of secession. An association of English colonies banded together and issued a Declaration of Independence that was presented to King George III. The King did not accept the secession and a civil war ensued.

Remember that the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was not the legal, formal secession document originating within any state Governor’s offices or the state legislatures. The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, merchants, farmers and others who took it upon themselves to place the King on notice of the intentions of a small minority of Royal subjects who did not wish to be subjects any longer, and who were leading a revolution against the King. (Read Secession and Attorneys)

Another secession event happened in the United States in the 1860s. This time, it was the actual state governments that issued formal secession documents.

The misinformation widely prevalent in America about secession was written by the winning side of the American War Between The States of 1861–1865. They called it the Civil War. But it was not a civil war by definition.

James Fearon, a civil wars scholar at Stanford University, defines a civil war as “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies.” Usually, one side of the conflict is the State.

Based on that definition, the actions of the 11 Confederate states in 1861 did not constitute starting a civil war. They weren’t looking to take power, overthrow the US government or change government policies. They just lawfully and peaceably seceded from the Union. The United States actually invaded a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, with the intent of overthrowing their government and bringing the states of the CSA back into the USA.

The most recent example of state secession happened in 1989 when the fifteen republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) seceded from the USSR. The USSR ceased to exist as all of the republics rejected the Kremlin government and became sovereign nations. (Go to: Mikhail Gorbachev and Secession)

Despite the fact that the USSR was the second most powerful nation on the planet, it was completely powerless to stop secession. Once the republics reasserted their sovereignty as free nations, the USSR dissolved into the dustbin of history.

What is the difference in secession and nullification?

Nullification is the legal principle holding that any US state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. It has its legal foundation in the 9th and 10 Amendments of the US Constitution. Nullification has been used by the states throughout US history to prevent unjust laws from being enforced.

The most noteworthy use of nullification by any state was the so-called Nullification Crisis of 1832. Congress had enacted a high tariff that South Carolina rejected in its Ordinance of Nullification, which stated that the tariff was unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable in South Carolina. The state made military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement. Congress responded by passing a Force Bill, authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina to enforce the tariff. But Congress simultaneously passed a new lower tariff that was satisfactory to South Carolina. So, Congress wisely chose to back down and compromise against the South Carolina nullification action.

Thirty-nine states of the United States have passed Tenth Amendment resolutions in recent months, stating that they are prepared to re-assert their authority to determine which Federal laws will be enforced within their borders. A few have enacted firearms legislation which states that firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within the borders of a particular state are not subject to Federal law and regulation. It remains to be seen if Washington will recognize the nullification of Federal gun laws.

So, we see that nullification is a method whereby a US state may effectively control the legislative process of the US Federal Government as it pertains to how Federal law is enacted and enforced within any state. Compare that process to secession, in which a state formally withdraws from the United States to become a sovereign nation. Secession asserts that the relationship between parties has ceased, and that all previous commitments are null and void.

Why should a state consider secession?

First, secession should never be considered for light or transient reasons. Disagreements come and go between parties, and can usually be negotiated to the satisfaction of all parties. But when a long list of abuses exists, when repeated usurpations of state authority are enacted, when the sovereignty of states is trampled and ignored, and when citizens suffer a diminution of both their natural rights and economic freedom, it is the duty of states to solemnly consider either altering or abolishing the government that abuses that state and its citizens.

Who benefits from secession and what are the benefits?

In today’s America, any seceding state will benefit from the repudiation of the United States’ debt load, which will result in the savings of hundreds of billions of dollars that the citizens of the seceding state will never have to pay. Otherwise, if a state secedes and forms a government just like the one from which they seceded, there is limited benefit to the state or the citizen. But if the state protects individual liberty, life and property rights, the citizens will be infinitely more free.

The citizens of a state that secedes benefit to the degree that the seceding state “institute(s) new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” (from US Declaration of Independence)

Also, any persons who immigrate to the seceding state can experience benefits if they renounce their former citizenship and become a citizen of the seceding state. But, an émigré who did not change citizenship would still receive benefit from simply living in the seceding state.

The business community in the seceding state will benefit instantly as the crushing weight of US Federal regulations would vanish. No longer would businesses be required to be the tax collector for the IRS. The economy of a seceding state would be expected to explode with new commerce directly attributable to the competitive advantages of the new state.

The new state government of the seceding state would benefit as they would be free of US government rules, regulations, usurpations and unfunded mandates. No longer would the seceding state be required to enforce US Federal law.

The seceding state would benefit from a general shared attitude of most people of hope, optimism and excitement about the future.

Immigration to the seceding state would explode as liberty-loving individuals worldwide would bring their talents, experience, assets and gifts to the new nation, seeking a bright future for themselves and their progeny.

Who doesn’t benefit from secession?

In this specific example of secession from the United States, the parties who do not benefit are the United States Federal Government and the states that remain in the Union. To them will fall the unconstitutional debt load in greater percentage than before secession. The US Federal Government will also receive no further revenue from the seceding state. Also, the citizens of the seceding state will no longer be available to the United States for military service. And, individual secessions will occur as Americans leave the USA to immigrate to the new nation…people voting with their feet.

Will state secession cause a military conflict between parties?

There is no reason in law or in fact that the parties may not mutually and amicably agree to separate from each other. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties to negotiate the secession issues, which would include issues of Federal lands inside state borders. But it should be stated that, in the 1783 Treaty negotiated between King George III of England and the United States of America, the King “relinquished all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

The seceding state would also be aware that, if the United States Federal Government dissolved or collapsed in like manner to the Soviet Union, any previously negotiated issues or treaties would be null and void.

Can secession be done without armed resistance?

As stated in the previous paragraph, secession should proceed without military conflict. But, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution states that because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, while no reason for armed conflict exists, that does not prevent it from occurring. A seceding state should revitalize its militia and prepare them for armed resistance and the defense of the borders of the seceding state from invasion by the United States military, its hired mercenaries, or United Nations troops.

Can Liberty be restored in America without secession?

The Washington political machine is spinning wildly out of control. Both political parties are two sides of the same coin. Neither party stands for Constitutionality, small government and fiscal responsibility. Even if you elect new representatives, senators and Presidents, the Washington culture will quickly corrupt them by requiring the officials to court contributions while lobbyists shower them with money and perks. In addition, Congress has created vast bureaucracies that grow and infest the nation unabated. Finally, and most importantly, the elected officeholders in Washington do not recognize any control or restraint on their power to enact unconstitutional laws and spend money in excess of tax revenues. Washington has borrowed trillions of dollars from the world that will never be repaid. If there is a solution to bring Washington back into compliance with the Constitution, I have not seen it to this date.

When should secession be done?

Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and unconstitutional laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Each individual must come to his or her own conclusion that secession is the only way to regain liberty, and each state must make its secession decision independently.

How would secession be done?

There is no written, formal method for initiating and completing an act of secession. If history can be our guide, we see that the conventions of the seceding states of 1860 wrote and ratified a Declaration of Secession. Each Declaration enumerated that particular state’s reasons for secession, in like manner to the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Then they passed an Ordinance of Secession. Here below is the simple, succinct wording of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession of 1860.

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

That is the sum of all the words necessary to complete the secession.

In conclusion, try to envision yourself and your family in a new nation created by secession. All the people you meet are excited and breathless in their anticipation of the future. The general opinion of the populace is pure unbridled optimism. The new nation’s economy is booming, the money is backed by gold and silver, and there is no inflation. “Now Hiring” signs are in all the shop windows. The newspaper’s “Help Wanted” ads are packed full. Prices for goods and services are low, and the stores are loaded with goods. Manufacturers are streaming into the new nation to take advantage of the rare pro-business atmosphere. Wages are climbing steadily in manufacturing jobs as companies compete for the best and brightest to be their employees. New businesses are being created at a fever pace. Residential and commercial construction is at a high level to meet the demand of the new residents.

All because one state recognized this historic opportunity and chased the dream of liberty through the process of state secession.

Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

December 29, 2009

Russell D. Longcore [send him mail] is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company. He is married to “his Redhead” Julie, has three wonderful children and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist website at:

Copyright © 2009 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

MAIG Blueprint for Ending Gun Ownership in the U.S.

Posted: 12/30/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has obtained a copy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayor Against Illegal Guns secret plan presented to President Obama. The document, obtained through an FOIA request, outlines an attack not on “illegal guns, but on all gun owners…here’s Sebastian’s quick summary of the points:

• Require REAL ID compliant identification for all gun purchasers.. Those in non-complying states, which are many, will no longer be permitted to buy firearms.
• Recommends a ban on the importation of all “non-sporting” firearms and ammunition, and specifically calls for banning the FN Five-Seven. Kiss cheap imported rounds of military caliber goodbye. Maybe kiss Glock’s goodbye too. MAIG isn’t all that specific on what would be sporting or non sporting. Also note that MAIG can no longer claim they do not advocate banning guns. They do.
• Calls for keeping records for people who get a NICS default proceed, which means your background check has not “cleared” but you went through the required three day waiting period. These records can be kept for up to 20 years, in the case of someone who’s name matches someone on the “terror watch” list and six months ordinarily. Default proceeds can happen if NICS has incomplete records, or the system is down for a protracted period of time.
• Calls for more enforcement of gun shows using the Richmond model. The techniques used at the Richmond gun shows were bad enough that Congress held hearings about the methods, and demanding ATF put a stop to them. They actually recommend rescinding a number of the changes made to prevent these abuses.
• Recommends ways for the administration to exploit loopholes in Tiahrt to publish information on “problematic” gun dealers (so they can be sued by New York City, no doubt). As we’ve pointed out on this blog before, having a lot of traces doesn’t necessarily mean a dealer is breaking the law.
• Lots of recommendations for new record keeping requirements on the part of FFLs
• Requiring placement of alternate serial numbers of every newly manufactured gun, and requiring serial numbers to be deeper and larger. Also require that a consistent serial numbering scheme be adopted across all manufacturers and importers.
• Asks ATF to promote MAIG’s Responsible Dealer Partnership Program that they foisted on Wal-Mart, much like they do with NSSF’s “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy.” They imply NSSF’s program does not go far enough.
• Asks the CPSC to mandate gun safety lock standards. Gun dealers are required to provide these, but many gun owners are older, or younger, and do not have children. This would be a way to add substantially to the cost of a firearm, if a 30 dollar lock needed to be included with each sale.
• Extend the multiple purchase reporting requirement to long guns, especially ARs, 50 caliber firearms, and Kalashnikov variants. MAIG is not very clear on this, and I think it would be difficult for dealers to keep track of the current state of regulation.
• Specifically calls for the Stinger Pen Gun to be reclassified as an AOW.. I had never heard of this before, but I guess it really pisses off someone in the New York Mayor’s office, which is a good enough reason, if any, to go buy one.

This is a deadly serious antigun initiative, especially since almost all these points can be accomplished administratively, with the stroke of a pen, with no Congressional approval required. This is the most sophisticated attack on RKBA ever, because it it flying under the radar and is now in the hands of the most antigun President in history.

Make no mistake — this is a blueprint for laying the groundwork for the complete disarming of America. Should Obama choose to act on any of these points we — as Sebastian correctly pointed out — “pretty screwed.”

Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S.

Posted: 12/29/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Sovereignty apparently set aside as agency exempted from law

Posted: December 28, 2009
8:57 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A little-discussed executive

order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.

At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.

Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.

That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement

organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”

Get “Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World” from the WND Superstore!

“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.

Obama’s order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:


“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.

At the website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.

“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.

“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.

“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.

“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”

International Criminal Court

Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.

Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.

“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.

At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.

“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”

But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”

Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”

At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”

At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”

But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.

“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?”

10th Amendment Muscle

Posted: 12/29/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011


News & Analysis by Doug Cook

State Seal of Texas

(Dec. 27, 2009) — Transgressions of Constitutional law by both Democratic controlled Houses of the U.S. Congress, under orders from the White House, specifically health care reform and the relation to the 1oth Amendment.


In an impassioned letter discussing financial ramifications and legality of the Health Care Reform Bill and its encroachment upon 10th Amendment sovereignty (as defined by the highest law of the United States), Texas Governor Perry sent a letter to Alabama Governor Bob Riley. Writing of the financial and social burden Obamacare would place illegally and unduly on states, Governor Perry in essence stated:

As the chief executive officers of our individual sovereign states, we must stand up to this unprecedented intrusion into our lives and the rights of our citizens. We must demonstrate resolve in the face of this infringement.


The letter is brief with its points made in clear terms. In concerns expressed by Gov. Perry, he starts out his missive to Gov. Riley stating that the financial burdens their states and citizens face by passage of the Democratic health care bill, (para phrasing Gov. Perry again):

it appears the federal health care bill will be pushed through the US Senate and passed into law. This legislation will likely result in higher health care costs and a reduced quality of care for all American families, as well as major budgetary hardships for all states except a few.

Perry goes on to point out the politics involved in passage of the bill that have raised the outrage of people across the country:

in the effort to pull together enough votes in support of this bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid made a deal to secure the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.

As a result, Nebraskans will be exempt from increased Medicaid costs from this bill’s passage.

taxpayers in Texas and in your state will be paying even more to subsidize expanded Medicaid for Nebraska and a few other states…

In light of the current state of affairs of DC politicians in the Democratic Party and its agenda of socializing every aspect of free enterprise and disinvestment of constitutional rights of the people and states, Perry ends his letter with these thoughts:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot is joining with several other states Attorneys General to place this deal under proper scrutiny and determine if such an exclusion-(Sen. Nelson’s deal with Sen. Reid)- is unconstitutional.

This health care bill and its unfunded mandates are unhealthy to taxpayers, our economy and our democracy. I urge you to support,(and join), the efforts of these Attorneys General and ask your own to join it, and work with me in ongoing efforts to assert the constitutional rights of states, as guaranteed under the 10th Amendment, to turn back the “one-size-fits-all” health care bill being forced through by congress.

For a full read: Gov. Perry’s letter

A growing number of states are considering actions. If effective, it could be the demise of Obamacare; for in the offing is the prospect of litigation that holds up ratification by the advent of the 2010 elections. Elections that portend a paradigm in how the electorate votes; Democrats are very conscience of the payback coming down the pike. This has the ideal benefit of avoiding legislation locked in stone; Sen. Reid’s unscrupulous attachments that secure this legislation from Amendment or removal for eternity.


While these efforts and discussion of people’s and states’ rights are encouraging, they still fall far short of addressing the root cause of the assault on the US constitution and Bill of Rights. Likely these efforts will be self serving to the financial needs of these states, if the litigation even takes place, or if so tied up for years in courts. Not to mention the further delay in justice gained and the further monetary burden of years of court actions.

There is hope that the issue of unconstitutionality of a federal health care bill, heard by a “polarized-progressive-left-orientated” federal court system, won’t go the way of Obama’s constitutional eligibility as POTUS, Acorn, the Black Panthers and voting fraud.

These States Governors may have good intentions, one wonders if in light of the lack of any effective conservative leadership they have the intestinal fortitude and vision to do what it takes.

Or, is it a case of leaden footed leadership. The importance of taking direct, effective and timely action by our states’ officials to protect and preserve sovereignty and republican government cannot be stressed enough. Pussy-footing around with niceties of fair-play legalities is to be far behind the curve of effective means to disrupting the destruction by a Marxist agenda of  Democratic lapdogs, and Obama’s vision of a fundamentally transformed “Amerika.”

Make no mistake, Obamacare is the bell weather of what is viewed as a corrupt and morally bankrupt elective government. Most likely history will show, as it did 234 years ago, that it will come down to the people to provide the effective actions and leadership to protect and assure our sovereign home.

Muslim terrorist fails to detonate device over Detroit

Posted: 12/29/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011


News by Doug Cook

Delta-Northwest Airlines

(Dec. 26, 2009) — Breaking news of Muslim terrorism attempt to explode bomb aboard Delta-Northwest Flight on approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport earlier today. From Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN):

Abdul Farouk Abdul-Mutallab (a/k/a Umar Farouk Abdul Mudallad), a 23 year-old Nigerian national, who is reportedly an engineering student at University College in London, UK, is the primary suspect in the attempt to detonate an explosive aboard Delta-Northwest Flight 253 as it prepared to land at Detroit Metropolitan Airport just before noon today. The suspect’s air travel originated in Lagos, Nigeria when he boarded board KLM Flight 588 to Amsterdam, where he then made the connecting flight aboard Delta-Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit. According to officials in Amsterdam, the suspect’s  stated purpose for traveling to Detroit was to attend an Islamic ceremony in Michigan. The suspect, who suffered second and third-degree burns on his upper extremities, is being treated at the University of Michigan Medical Center and will be transferred into federal custody.

Early reports indicate that the terrorist is listed on Federal no-fly bulletins, had  passed a number of security checks prior to entering US airspace, and there is speculation components of the explosive device where placed aboard before hand. Again from NEIN:

According to a law enforcement source speaking to this investigator, the suspect is on several terrorism watch lists and is also reportedly on a federal no-fly list, although there is some confusion about the latter. “It might be the result of variations of the suspect’s name,” stated this source, although this source admitted it would be unusual due to the methods currently employed to guard against such omissions.

Speaking to this investigator, (Douglas J Hagmann), exclusively for Canada Free Press and the Northeast Intelligence Network, this law enforcement official stated that federal officials are “extremely interested” in how the suspect was able to circumvent security and bring the explosive device aboard the aircraft. Although security in Nigeria and at European airports is less restrictive [than inside the U.S], “this is most definitely something that should have attracted the attention of airport security, without any doubt whatsoever.” According to this source, federal authorities are looking at other possible scenarios on how the device made it aboard, and whether any of its components might have already been aboard the connecting flight.

In this report according to sources close to NEIN is the part passengers played in the drama, within seconds of this terrorist attempting to activate the fuse on his bomb he was physically subdued:

As the passengers were being prepared for final approach, the suspect successfully lit a small, crudely fashioned powdered-filled device. It is believed that the device malfunctioned, although there was a relatively small popping noise heard throughout the cabin that amounted to what some described as a firecracker,” stated this source.  “Almost immediately, passengers near the suspect physically subdued him, and were assisted by two members of the flight crew,”

In recent news of a multitude of attempts of radical Islamic terrorism inside the boarders of the US, this event is a chilling reminder of the war that is ongoing and crimes committed by psychopathic criminals who are bent on killing and maiming under the guise of religious extremism. The failure of most of these acts of terrorism speaks volumes about the effective campaign the courageous men and woman of our Military and Law Enforcement community has had on operational structure of AlQaeda and associated terror organizations since 9/11.

A Mouth Full Of The Forbidden Fruit – DAVID JEFFERS

Posted: 12/29/2009 by Lynn Dartez in 2011
December 29, 2009

David Jeffers

Yesterday I received the following response to my devotional from a sister in Christ:

“‘Will I awaken tomorrow seeking anew God’s will for me this day, or will I awaken ready to grab the bull by the horns only to find myself in the wrong pasture?’ That resonated with me Bro. Dave, as a ‘daughter of Eve’ I so often find myself with a mouth full of the forbidden fruit in my efforts to be like God by getting ahead of God’s will and trying to fix it the way my mind and emotions think would be the ‘best’ way. It amazes me how quickly I end up in the wrong pasture.”

Oh yes, too often have I found myself in the wrong pasture.  Sometimes it is by accident…completely unintentional, but most times it is from my willful disobedience.  I too often find myself feeling like Paul:

“For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” (Romans 7:15-20)

It brings me very little comfort that knowing I sin and grieve the Holy Spirit is a sign of my salvation and the ongoing spiritual battle.  Before I got saved I was ignorant of the law and I delighted in my sin, but now this almost schizophrenic battle over sin makes me cry out:

“O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)

If Paul had stopped writing there my salvation would seem utterly hopeless but alas and glory to God he kept writing:

“I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 7:25 – 8:11)

Since I am in Christ Jesus I do not face the condemnation but I am expected to walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh.  And if Christ is in me, my body is dead because of sin, but the Holy Spirit living in me is life because of Jesus’ righteousness.  Will I ever begin living my life this way?  Will I truly be crucified with Christ or is that just going to be another great Christian song I listen to and raise my hands in false praise and worship knowing all the while that part of me hangs onto my dead corpse like a refugee with his last possession?

Because I am an American, through our US Constitution, I have individual liberty.  And because I am a Christian, through the debt paid by the blood of Christ, I have spiritual liberty.  I do not need to live in bondage even though my spirit is a prisoner in my body; I can look to the future knowing this earthly sentence will one day be over:

“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Romans 8:18-21)

So how do I get over this battle between my spirit and flesh? I have to remember that because I have the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, I am made me free from the law of sin and death.  I have to remember that the Heavenly Father forgives me and is always ready to restore my relationship with him.  I like the following verse from the late Keith Green’s song, Romans VII:

Lord how I know your tender heart must be broken,
By all those unkept promises I've made,
The question still prevails, please take away the doubt,
About how you forgive, and still you live inside when I fail.

That surely needs to become a prayer for me…Lord please take away the doubt.

In Christ


Ps. 37:4

Posted 2009-12-29 5:41 AM (#31201) By: EternalVigilance