Lawmaker offers 'modest bill' for detainees

One Congressman grows a set and stands up in the face of the Politics of Adolescents, and begins to behave as an adult.

As reported on Politico:
By REP. LOUIE GOHMERT
After reading through Boumediene v. Bush, I cannot help but feel that it is simply about the judiciary expanding its own power by usurping the clearly defined constitutional powers of Congress and the president. In essence, the Supreme Court ruled in this case that when Congress and the president followed the decisions the court itself made in crafting law regarding enemy combatants, they did not act within the bounds of our Constitution.

As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “The DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] system of military tribunal hearings followed by Article III review looks a lot like the procedure Hamdi blessed. If nothing else, it is plain from the design of the DTA that Congress, the president and this nation’s military leaders have made a good faith effort to follow our precedent. The court, however, will not take ‘yes’ for an answer.”

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, America listens. Congress believed that the Supreme Court would follow its own rulings and the precedents it set when it ruled in the 2004 Hamdi case, the 2006 Hamdan case, and the 1950 Eisentrager case.

In his dissent in Boumediene, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's decision means the "[handling of] enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns." If the high court is going to exceed its jurisdiction and endanger the American people, at least we can help it do a better job by seeing that it has a little skin in the game with some hands-on experience.

The Supreme Court clearly is exercising self-appointed war powers in order to micromanage the handling of international terrorists. By transporting all of the detainees to the court's grounds, my bill, H.R. 6615 — "To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, D.C., where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes" — will give the justices plenty of opportunities to interact with these terrorists and therefore do a better job of supervision.

It is especially important for the court to closely observe the effects of its ruling, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent: “During the 1995 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the Blind Sheik’s defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of Osama bin Laden within two weeks. … In another case, trial testimony revealed to the enemy that the United States had been monitoring their cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue their atrocities.” Scalia surmised that, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the nation’s commander in chief will make war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional republic. But it is this court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”

What a sad day it was for the rule of law when such important constitutional precedent was discarded. And what a sad day it is when Americans cannot rely on their Supreme Court to be consistent in upholding the rules it makes. As a former judge, I have a deep understanding of the role of precedent in creating certainty, stability and order. The purpose of my bill is simply to hold our high court responsible for its decisions, so that we may rely on some degree of certainty as we go forth in conducting the work of our nation. The court needs to understand that it does not make such inconsistent rulings in a harmless vacuum.

Rep. Louie Gohmert is a U.S. representative for Texas (R-Texas).

There was a time when most of our elected officials actually behaved as adults, and as a result built on what our framers started rather than destroying it. But somewhere along the way, selfish desires and an apatite for power corrupted the lot of them and even the perception of career politicians who are owned by lobbyists and special interest groups. Now, when an individual stands up and says something with meaning, we applaud them as being extraordinary. What a shame.

Congress Screwing America

I am amazed at the individuals who take Boxer and Feinstein seriously when the bash the Bush Administration. He doesn't legislate our government, the congress does, and in the last yeay and a half, Congress has earned a whopping 14% overal approval rating thanks to the idiot speaker of the house.

Pelosi Blocks Gas Price Relief
By Henry Lamb
July 29, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN that she would block any vote to allow offshore drilling. This remarkable stance comes in the face of the latest poll that says 73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling, while only 27 percent oppose it. Nancy Pelosi again displays her contempt for her employer, the American people. Her arrogance and wrong-headed philosophy have led Congress to an approval rating of a staggering 14 percent, the lowest ever.

And imagine if the democrats secure the whitehouse as well as a fillibuster proof congress. You think its bad now?

Gawfer, at a wise 17 years

While stationed at NATTC Memphis for A school, a photo was taken and a portrait painted.

For posterity's sake and subsequent entertainment.

(Thanks for the correction, Chief)

Gawfer's Opnion on the 2nd Amendment

Click on the Pic to buy this Tee Shirt and many others.

The Surge was only Marginally Successful Says Obama

Once again, we see the audacity of stupidity present itself in the form of stubborn arrogance.



Good Lord, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that violence is down 80% thanks mostly to the efforts of our Military and General Patraeus. Even Katie tried to point that out; only to be patronized by Obama. Clearly, Liberalism is the politics of adolescents. And democrats are those politicians who never grew up.

Obama Love Affair

Hat tip: Kelly found it.

By the way, this is on the McCain site, LOL!.

Iran Wants to Control Islam

Iran's Aggressive Proselytizing Campaign
By OLIVIER GUITTA (Middle East Times)Published: July 21, 2008

"While Iran is flexing its muscles and looking to expand throughout the whole Middle East by way of military force, it is also orchestrating an insidious campaign to control the region's religion. In fact, Iran is spending money, energy and time to proselytize local populations and de facto trying to take over Islam.

The success of this Iranian-sponsored operation has pushed Sunni states to react. Of all the Sunni countries, Saudi Arabia is the one feeling the most threatened by this new wave of Shiite proselytizing. "If it's not to export the revolution like in the time of the Khomeini regime, Shiism exportation – as we see it today – is still unacceptable," noted Saudi Social Affairs Minister Abdel Mohsen al-Hakas..."

OK, I am currently in the middle of Tom Clancy's novel Executive Orders in which Iran attempts to gain complete control of the Middle East by way of coordinated terrorist attacks against its neighbors and the United States.

But I digress.
Iran has put itself into an aggressive position against a foe it cannot defeat; however, by default, it will be the victim if attacked by Israel or the US, and will likely garner the sympathy of its neighbors which will provide the path of influence it seeks. Therefore, an attack on its nuclear program alone will not be sufficient to stop the insidious regime. The head of the snake must be cut off as well, or it will gain the power it seeks. We cannot make the same mistake ‘41’ made with Saddam Hussein.

New York Times Loves Obama; Hates McCain

I guess we know what Middle East country is running the NYT:

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the Drudge has learned.

FOX News reports:
“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.

Also Posting:
LGF
Gina Cobb

Here's McCain's Op Ed in full:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Gina Cobb has also included McCain's Speech from last year's Congressional 'Slumber Party'. It doesn't sound a lot different from this Op Ed.

Don't Tread on Me, Obama

What can I do to secure the future? Pray, and post.



H/T: SGT H

Great JibJab Video

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

I found this on Kate's Site.

Clear as Mud? Lemme Help

Why?



Then who?

Are Democrats and Obama Good for our Economy?

I received this email this morning from a friend, and found it quite ‘enlightening’. Though it came in 3 parts, most of the links in part three were dead or unverifiable, so I omitted it from this post. Be sure to look at the tax link.

Part 1

"In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $[4.50] a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to [5.5%] (a [12.5%] increase);
4) American households have seen $2.[5] trillion in equity value evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.[5] trillion dollars;
6) 2% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember, it's Congress that makes law, not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

_________________________________________________
Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these verified statistics enlightening and amazing.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

__________Clinton_________ __________ Bush__________
Single making 30K --- tax $8,400 Single making 30K --- tax $4,500
Single making 50K --- tax $14,000 Single making 50K --- tax $12,500

Single making 75K --- tax $23,250 Single making 75K --- tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K- tax $38,750 Married making 125K- tax $31,250

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama is elected, he says he will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened. "

It really is time to stop bashing McCain as he is what stands between you and a whole lot of discomfort and a fundamental loss of freedom.

Friday Party Wit' Santana & 'Nabesata'

Friday Party!



Days of old...

Iran Tests 9 Medium- and Long-Range Missiles

FOX News reports:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported.

The exercise was being conducted at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about 40 percent of the world's oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.

Oil prices jumped on news of the missile tests, rising $1.80 to $137.84 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by afternoon in Europe.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," the TV report said.

On April 17, 2006, Gen. Abdorrahim Musavi very clearly stated on Iranian TV his intentions.

As a side note, Barack Obama believes that more diligent and unconditional negotiations with Iran is the answer. What on earth does this arrogant individual think he can say to convince Iran to stand down enrichment and reprocessing of Uranium that hasn't already been said?

Iran has been a hostile adversary since 1979 when they took the American Embassy hostage. They were behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and have financed and backed continuous hostilities for the last 3 decades. Sanctions have been imposed, and lifted throughout the duration with no significant affect on their single mindedness.

Time is running out, and if our present administration passes without acting, the Middle East will indeed become a radioactive barren land.

Also Posting:

Texasfred

Tuesday Respite

This cat influenced my early walk as a Christian. Friends, meet Phil Keaggy.

2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President

this is an email I received this morning, and thought it interesting and insightful.

A look into the future looking back.


Introduction:

Welcome to Toastmasters, June 13, 2033. That's right: 2033.

Today Rick Campbell, one of our senior members at age 87, is here to reminisce a bit and give us a history lesson. He says he is so old that he learned to drive an internal combustion engine car (remember those) with a manual transmission. He once owned a typewriter. He remembers when bicycles had one speed, phones had two-party lines, and cameras had something called film. As incredible as this may seem, he says that when he was young, it was common for people to smoke in restaurants and public places. He is from a different time; almost a different world.

I'm sure all of us are far too familiar with the tragic events of 2010, so Rick is not going to plow that fertile field again. Instead, he is going to give us a personal look back at the conditions which led up to that fateful year, in a speech titled "2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President."

"2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President"

Yes, 2010 was long ago and far away.

As we look back on history, it appears that some Presidents had an easy ride- times of growth and stability. Teddy Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton comes to mind. Those were good years to be President.

Others were elected just when the Republic was facing terrible crises: Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and George W. Bush. They rose to the occasion, even though they were controversial and widely hated while in office. Not such good years to be President.

Just a few years prior, in 2008, the country began foundering. We were in the sixth year of the Iraqi Occupation, and the economy was flat. The mainstream press clearly wanted a Democrat elected.

Although we didn't know it until some years later, oil producing nations had colluded to secretly buy their own oil on the open market, driving oil prices to shocking levels above the true demand price- reaching a high of $162 a barrel in October, 2008, just before the general elections.

Their purpose was simple: to effect regime change in the United States.

And of course, the U.S. economy was already in a real estate slump and also suffering the curse of stagflation; slow growth and high inflation.

There were a million home foreclosures.

Independent truckers went under by the thousands.

Airlines failed. Airlines with names now long-forgotten: United, Delta, Northwestern, American. All now merged, of course, into the one lone U.S. carrier we love so much: Southwest.

Against this backdrop of weariness of the war on terror, and economic distress, the American people were ripe for a demagogue, and they certainly got one in Barack Hussein Obama.

He and his running mate Kathleen Sibelius inspired them with vague notions of hope and change; of a world in which diplomacy settled all international problems, of free universal health care, of abundant alternative energy, of peace and love.

It was a vision too good to resist.

The Republican nominee, a name you probably haven't heard in years anyone? Yes, it was John McCain, an obscure Senator from Arizona had no clue how to run a national campaign, and a platform nearly as liberal as Obama's.

The selection of Condoleeza Rice as his running mate looked brilliant at first. Unfortunately, black voters viewed her as white, and women voters viewed her as one of the guys.

Even so, the McCain/Rice ticket would have won the election if it weren't for the fact that 16 percent of conservative Republicans voted for anyone remember? That's right, Bob Barr, another name that's a footnote in history.

After Obama's narrow win, thanks to recounts in Broward County, Florida, the country was positively giddy. A Democrat House, Senate, and President. At last an end to gridlock in Washington. Camelot!

When Congress convened in January, 2009, the 44th President of the United States did something unique in history: he made good on his campaign promises.

Certainly most Americans never really thought he was serious during the campaign. But whether because of inexperience, idealism, or simply incompetence, he followed through.

In Obama's first One Hundred Days, the Congress passed his initiatives, and he signed them into law as he said he would.

He repealed the Bush tax cuts, and increased capital gains taxes.

He enacted a windfall profits tax, and instituted price controls on gasoline and diesel fuel.

He passed universal health care, which added an additional 10 percent tax increase on all working Americans, and he signed the Immigrant Amnesty bill which created 12 million new citizens instantly, each with entitlements.

He closed the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and summarily released all the detainees.

He repealed the Patriot Act, and cut funding for espionage, and eliminated all terrorist listening and wiretaps.

Most important, he began the complete and immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

He ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to retain bases in Kuwait and Qatar. Instead, he went with the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Dennis Kucinich, and ordered all troops back to U.S. soil.

Viola! In One Hundred Days, by May of 2009, it was all done, and the vision was complete. He did exactly what he said he would do.

And so it was in the summer of 2009 that things began to unravel for Obama.

Of course, the economy needed a tax cut, not an increase, and unemployment quickly rose to 12 percent. Even attorneys and economists were put in the bread lines. Hard times.

Price controls on gasoline immediately led to shortages and gas lines.

The global cooling trend we have seen for the past 25 years first became obvious in 2009, exposing the CO2 global warming fraud. People were justifiably angry.

Federal deficits increased massively because thousands of baby boomers, facing job loss and much higher taxes, simply gave up and took social security.

Although the superb U.S. health care system was thrown into disarray, the bright spot was the creation of the Federal Department of Health care, and the immediate hiring of 250,000 administrators, inspectors and auditors, the only job growth in any economic sector in 2009.

By February 2010, the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq was complete. It was a very expensive undertaking.

And then in March, the gradual Shiite insurgencies from Iran turned into a true Iraqi civil war. In May, Iranian tanks crossed the border and quickly took Baghdad. Although the exact number is not know, at least 230,000 Sunni Iraqis died as we stood by.

Iran also quickly moved into undefended Kuwait.

President Obama did exactly what he said he would. He sent Secretary of State Maria Cantwell to Tehran to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

After two weeks of high level talks, the United States agreed to allow Iran to retain Iraq and Kuwait to create stability in the Middle East, with the understanding that Israel would not be disturbed.

Cantwell returned to Washington, and explained the agreement in her famous speech, in which she proudly noted that the Obama administration had finally achieved "peace in our time" in the Middle East.

So there was some surprise at the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv on August
14th.

President Obama said, "This is not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."

The Obama administration decided it would be de-stabilizing to take sides in the conflict, and approximately 29,000 Israeli civilians died during the summer and fall.

American Jews were appalled at the inaction. Yes, in 2 010 most American Jews were Democrats, but because of 2010, they are solid Republicans today.

As awkward as it was, everything might have turned out all right for the Obama administration going into the fall mid-term elections of 2010, if it hadn't been for the dirty bomb in the Port of Long Beach.

The administration had cut funding for the inspection of containers, because they felt it showed a "lack of trust" in the international trading community.

It wasn't really a very big bomb, and thank goodness, not a real nuclear device, but nonetheless it contaminated some expensive real estate- Newport Beach, Palos Verdes Estates- and ultimately caused the death of
14,000 Americans. People were especially annoyed that Disneyland had to be closed for decontamination.

And so, in the midterm elections, Republicans regained control of both the House and Senate, and the rest is history.

The impeachment proceedings against President Obama for "failure to protect and defend" were swift and nearly unanimous. Vice President Sibelius resigned. Newly-elected Speaker of the House, J.C. Watts, became the 45th President of the United States.

But you know the rest of the story well.

Republicans finished the war on Islamic fundamentalists, largely by aiming ICBM's at Mecca and Medina.

No Democrat has been elected President since.

Republicans have held both Houses of Congress.

History of Western Civilization and Economics are now taught in all public schools; and in English only.

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

And there are border fences, north and south.

We old codgers remember the ancient Confucian curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Well, 2010 was an interesting year, but it was not a good year to be President."

The Powerful Source of our Law

After debating about the recent rulings from the SCOTUS, some things have become clearer regarding the source of authority. Our constitution was written in secret and vigorously debated over several months, and even some of the participants refused to sign the final draft. They contended that in its form, there was either too much specificity or too much ambiguity. But the final effort provided a document that was able to be amended if needed, and provided a solid framework for our laws today. It is clear that our Constitution was based on the fundamentals of Divine law as shown here:

A. [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.
From:
Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.

B. All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
From:
James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation."

C. [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.

D. [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.

Now, even though my position is that our Constitution was based either directly or indirectly upon biblical principles of right and wrong; specifically, the divine law of God as illustrated and sourced above, my esteemed and learned opponent’s position was: ‘Though the framers were influenced by biblical teachings, they more directly relied on the laws and philosophies from England.’ This is an interesting and seemingly feasible argument, so, after further research, my findings are such:

The root of English Law was also the bible.

Samuel Rutherford states in the question of ‘Whether government Be Warranted by a Divine Law’:
“The power of government in general must be from God, I make good:
1st because (Romans 13:1) “There is no power but of God; the powers that are ordained of God.”
2nd, God commands obedience, and so subjection of conscience to powers; Romans 15:5, wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, (or civil punishment) but also for conscience sake;” 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme,” etc. now God only by a divine law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience, tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgress.”

Conclusion: “All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that,
1st, God has made man a social creature, and one who inclines to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man’s nature; so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle.
2nd, God and nature intends the policy of peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of government…”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/rutherford/ruth-01.htm

In the THEOKRATIA, OR THE Divine Government of Nations CONSIDERED and IMPROVED, by Robert Fleming, V.D.M., Mr. Fleming writes: “…There is hardly any principle of argumentation, from whence purity of life, and reformation of manners may not be urged and enforced. For whether we consider natural or revealed religion; whether we think of God, ourselves, or others; whether we reflect on man apart, or in relation to society, as to their peace here, or happiness hereafter; still we may by an easy inference find our thoughts terminate on reformation and piety, as a thing excellent in itself, and beneficial to men; the very naming of which is enough to ravish the souls of good men, and to serve convictions on the consciences of the wicked…”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1699-dgn.htm

Whether the founders followed the Christian faith or not, they understood that Biblical values formed the basis for not only of the republic, but for English Law as well, and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.

This brings me to the head of the spear, so to speak. Understanding that our constitution is man’s interpretation of God’s divine law, one must assume that at times the constitution will fall short of providing adequate solutions to humanistic transgressions. When this occurs, such as the recent ruling against capital punishment extending beyond murder, and the California Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the vote of the people regarding gay marriage, the solution is not to interject one’s opinion or to seek a populous consensus as was done in both cases, but to go to the source of our constitution; divine law.

Because secularism has pervaded our society and our nation has become mostly agnostic, our appointed judges are ruling based on a popular opinion rather than using fundamental principles of interpretation. It is very clear that in both cases, the decisions would have been exactly opposite had they adhered to the basic truths and applied biblical principles to each case. Thankfully, we are still ‘One Nation, Under God’; but that is slowly slipping away.

Happy 4th of July, 2008

From the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

A couple of statements to consider:
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

Gawfer and family wishes you all a happy 4th of July, and hopes that each of my readers will continue to enjoy the blessings of the God that was referred to thoughout the beginning of our Country; whether you acknowledge Him or not.

Peace.

The 2nd Amendment for Real.

Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

"Move and your dead!" is clearly heard on his 911 call right before the two buglars... uh... moved. Why has home invasion, buglary and robbery become so widespread? Perhaps because there hasn't been an abundance of folks willing to do what Mr. Horn did.

Though, it's not likely that criminals read this blog, read the news paper, or even take the time to watch the news on TV, this may trickle down far enough to inspire folks to regain their intestinal fortitude and begin defending their lives and property. The way I see it, if a man is willing to risk his life to threaten my family and property, I'm willing to take his life defending my family and property. Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

H/T Danny the Moonbat