Patrick Henry Lives
Bio not provided
@Admiral America The federal government has strained against the Constitution from the moment it came into force. The Alien and Sedition act under John Adams was a gross violation of the 1st Amendment and prompted Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions. Today, almost every thing the federal government does is unconstitutional.
1 year, 9 months ago on Kansas Governor Sam Brownback Signs 2nd Amendment Protection Act into Law
Right on, Arizona! The paper money machine called the Federal Reserve means that government no longer has to be accountable to the People by coming to us for taxes to finance warfare and welfare; it can just print and spend, and tax us indirectly through a depreciate currency. The Founders knew all the evils of "bills of credit" and prohibited the States to issue them or make them legal tender. The federal government, of course,does not even have authority to enfranchise banks, let alone a monopolistic central bank issuing private notes for government debt. We are on the road to ruin through endless federal spending and monetized debt. Unless and until we return to gold/silver backed currencies, we are doomed to economic collapse. Thank God for Arizona!
1 year, 10 months ago on Gold and Silver Approved as Legal Tender by Arizona Senate – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@TannerWilliams @DanielSaccomando But of course, the federal judiciary almost always rules in favor of the federal government, so our only real hope for preserving liberty is our guns and the resolve to remain free.
1 year, 12 months ago on Franklin County, Indiana Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance
Sad to say, but the federal government is the single greatest threat to our liberty we face today. We may fast be approaching the time when we will be forced to choose between the chains of federal slavery or undertaking the second American Revolution to defend ourselves and preserve our liberty. Nullification legislation and acts removing local incidents of firearms manufactured in-state are the best bet we have to avoid tyranny and bloodshed. I hope and pray state legislatures will push back against fed gov and preserve liberty for us and our children.
This sort of effort is long, long overdue. The States and People should secede before they allow the federal Leviathan to devour the remaining tatters of our liberty. God bless Arizona!
2 years ago on Arizona Senate Bill Proposes Jail Time for Violations of the 2nd Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Obama's announcement to ban assault rifles shows how timely this sort of legislation is. We need to be prepared to fight to the death on this one.
2 years ago on Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment
The Commerce Clause has been grossly perverted to allow congress to regulate almost anything it wants. It took a Constitutional Amendment to reach local incidents of beverage alcohol during Prohibition (18th Amendment). Yet, by the same clause Congress now purports to be able to reach local incidents of drugs, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, Congress now purports to regulate by statute and judicial fiat what formerly took a Constitutional Amendment. Wyoming's effort is a good start. The states should be prepared to secede if Congress and the Administration try to restrict ownership of semi-automatic weapons, as these are absolutely essential to preserving our freedom from a tyrannical central government.
2 years ago on Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
The only viable formula for limiting the power and usurpation of the central government is for the States to grow sufficiently frightened of enslavement and financial ruin that they seriously contemplate and threaten secession. Unless and until we are serious enough about freedom to be willing to risk fighting and dying for it, there is small hope of change. The federal government's pattern of total disregard for the Constitution stretches over many, many decades. There is no hope short of war or total financial ruin that it will ever correct its course. The States need to start thinking in terms of protecting themselves against the federal government, of seeing their first duty to God and to their citizens, rather than to the Union. We need moral leadership to resist the federal government at the State level. That is what we most need and what we most lack.
2 years, 5 months ago on Bad for Freedom
@DonJonVonavich I am not so sure that secession is beyond the realm of reality. When Obama was first elected there was a lot of agitation and discomfort among the states, what with REAL ID, Health Care, Gun Control, etc. Many states passed 10th Amendment Resolutions and Freedom of Firearm Acts, all which forebode civil war. I think the States could successfully secede if circumstances were right. A broke federal government with two foreign wars going is not in a great position to fight another/multiple fronts at home. Also, world-opinion, which we seem to idolize so much, would not look favorably on the federal government making war against peaceable states intent on no more than gong their own way. I wouldn't rule it out, but agree it is not on the immediate horizon any where.
2 years, 6 months ago on End the Fed! Whether Congress Wants us to or Not!
Bad money drives out good. Nobody is going to consent to pay gold or silver to the State if he could pay fiat FRN's instead! The first time this sort of law is passed someone will go to federal court to challenge the compulsory use of gold/silver to pay state debts and, presto, the whole thing will collapse. I appreciate the author's attempt, but it is wishful thinking totally out of touch with reality. The Federal government will only consent to change with the States force it to change by threat of secession.
As much as we need monetary reform, I have to say this proposal seems out of touch with reality and is nothing more than an exercise in wishful thinking. It is silly to believe that any State could succeed in getting a secondary currency to circulate. All that is required to sink the whole scheme is one person going to Federal court to challenge the requirement of paying money other than FRN and the whole thing will collapse, because we all know how the federal judiciary will rule! No, the States are going to have to gather up the courage to demand reform or threaten revolt or secession and be prepared to back it up before real change will come about. The enemy of our freedom is Washington DC and we need to begin to look this fact square in the face and openly talk about it.
@RtGreenwood The article argues that States can end-run the Fed ("nullify") by causing a gold/silver backed currency to be legal tender in their States. But as bad money drives out good, the two currencies will not circulate together. People will hoard the gold/silver and the fiat will continue to circulate in perpetuity. The principle that bad money drives out good means that a good, constitutional currency will never circulate side by side with a fiat currency as people will always hoard the one and pass the other along.
What about the principle that "bad money drives out good"? People hoard gold and silver and use paper money because it is "worthless". Thus, whenever good money and bad money circulate side by side, bad money drives out good. How will a gold backed currency/coin circulate simultaneously with fiat money?
@Brian Barrett The Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. The People, acting through their respective State governments, can make laws respecting an establishment of religion, etc. The Supreme Court has turned the Bill of Rights against the States via the 14th Amendment, by finding something called 'substantive due process" which allows them to review the substance of the local acts and legislation. The history of the Bill of Rights until after the Civil War ALWAYS ruled that it they applied only against the Feds.
2 years, 7 months ago on The Bill of Rights Applies to the Federal Government
If a governor of one of the 50 States used a drone to assassinate a criminal who was difficult to bring to justice because he was beyond State jurisdiction, it would be murder, and everyone would call it that. The fact that the killing occurred on foreign soil would not blind us to the extra-legal nature of the act. The same should be true of Obama: His assassination of individuals, particularly American citizens, on foreign soil is murder, and he should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress has the moral courage to seek his impeachment, and the press has insulated him against criticism. The President of the U.S. has become the "assassin in chief." It is past time for the States to secede and part ways with the criminal organization called the federal government. May God send us courageous leaders to resist federal tyranny!
2 years, 7 months ago on The Secret Kill List
@solarwizardry Amen to State flags flying atop the U.S. flag! Why should we lift the federal government above the States that created it?
2 years, 8 months ago on Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning
The Founders should have made "original intent" the sole interpretative method permitted in the courts of the U.S. government. Indeed, an Amendment enshrining Original Intent is in Order:"The Constitution and laws passed pursuant thereto shall be interpreted and enforced according to their Original Intent at the time of adoption, and no decision, rule, or judgment of any court in contravention of Original Intent shall be of any force or effect. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution shall not be interpreted to incorporate the Bills of Rights or otherwise render them applicable against the States. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process is hereby annulled." A Constitutional Amendment like this ought to be sponsored by the Tenth Amendment center.
All Congressmen voting for NDAA ought to be indefinitely detained in federal prison for violating their oath of office and high crimes and misdemeanors against the U.S. Constitution.
2 years, 8 months ago on After NDAA Amendment, Indefinite Detention Still the Law
The Bill of Rights is expressly limited to the Federal government: "Congress shall make no law." Nothing in binds the States or People, or limits their powers in any way. If a State wanted to declare itself officially "Catholic" (Maryland, for example), it was within the right and power of the People and State to do so. The power to decide issues of religion, like so many other issues of uniquely local moment, was reserved to the People and States by the 10th Amendment.
2 years, 8 months ago on The Bill of Rights Applies to the Federal Government
@EdwardNilges If the right to rebel is determined by the "context of the times" prohibited only because "resistance would be suicide", then when the context of the times counsels otherwise, or where not to resist would be suicide, then by your definition we are free to follow our conscience and resist or rebel. Thanks for making my case for me! :)
2 years, 8 months ago on Free at Last! Martin Luther King and Nullification
@EdwardNilges WRONG! The Constitution reserves to the People and States the right to decide local issues of religion and establishment. The States have ALWAYS been competent to establish churches, fund them with taxes, pay for printing of Bibles, make belief in the Trinity or Christianity a condition of holding elective office, etc. Just read your history and you will find that the states all had laws of the sort described. The prohibitions of the 1st Amendment only apply to Congress: "Congress shall make no law." Not one word restricts the States and People from deciding local issues of religion and morality for themselves. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment guarantees them that right! It is only by turning the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights back against the State via the 14th amendment and the phony judge created doctrine of "substantive due process" that the States have been robbed of the right to decide local issues for themselves.
The doctrine of judicial supremacy says that the judiciary is the final arbiter of laws. But this is certainly questionable. The courts can render their opinions, but opinions obnoxious to the Constitution are no more binding than laws that are obnoxious. Why should the usurpation of judges stand absolute, but the usurpation of the legislative and execute branch be stricken down? What makes the lawless acts of judges (of which there are so very many abortion being the most egregious) inviolate? Why should a majority of nine non-elected judges be able to dictate the laws and morals of a whole country? There is much to commend England's system whereby the House of Lord is the court of last resort, thereby reserving to the people's elected representatives the final say, rather than non-elected judges.
2 years, 8 months ago on Did the Founders expect the Courts to Declare Laws Unconstitutional?
@EdwardNilges The Bible teaches rules of conduct and is not concerned to spell out all the exceptions to the rules. Paul said be subject to rulers, but the same language is said of wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters. But who would argue there is no limit upon the superior's authority, or that one can not resist unlawful assaults of a master, a parent, or husband? Is a daughter to submit to incest and rape by her faither? Is a wife to submit to the violence of a drunken husband and never defend herself. Hardly! The rule is to be submissive and obey those in authority, but every rule has its exceptions as every man knows. Most certainly we can resist evil in high places and indeed it is among the highest expressions of our faith to hazard our life, liberty, and property doing so.
I hate it when people hold King out as some sort of moral champion. King was an immoral hypocrite. He called himself "Reverend" and held himself out as a minister of the gospel, but he was a serial adulterer and womanizer and made homosexual advances to Leon Abernathy. King is not the sort of man I can look as a role model of any kind. I am sorry so many people are duped into holding him up as a sort of moral hero to emulate. In an age that needs true moral heroes, King certainly is not one of them.
@EdwardNilges The mantel of authority God has given government is not a license to kill, to oppress, or to resist the Gospel and kingship of Christ. The government is ordained for good so that lawlessness and anarchy do not prevail, but when government becomes the source of lawlessness and evil, then the right of self defense may be invoked. Moreover, under the law, when a man owned an ox that was known to gore, if he did not take adequate precaution to restrain it and it gored a man, then it could be murder in the ox's owner. See Exodus 21:28-32. The government is our servant, and if a government behaves like a wild beast killing and destroying property, it is our duty to restrain it by whatever means we can. There are many examples of men resisting evil government: indeed, that is the principle reason the prophets were martyred! They spoke out! And as to the use of force to resist or overthrow, there are many examples of this in the Old Testament also: Samson, Gideon, Barak, are just a few. Read the book of Judges! It is folly to argue that Nero's murder and torture of Christians was God's will. God allowed it to happen; he did not approve or ordain it. Besides, the historical situation facing Christians in the first century is totally different than ours today, where we are a majority. It would be silly to ask 200 million Christians to submit passively to a million or so wicked men in high places. Indeed, it is a reproach upon our faith that we weakly yield power to men who are actively subverting Christianity and causing millions of children to lose their souls by teaching corrupting doctrines like evolution in public schools, prohibiting equal time to Intelligent Design. I believe there is a posititve right of rebellion when once all patience and longsuffering has been exhausted, like the Founders recited in the Declaration of Independence.