A fun pass time on YouTube - Secession is a Right?

I'm not 100% sure how we got into a big discussion, but I am enjoying it so far. It's amazing how people want to tell you something is impossible, when indeed, nothing is impossible.

Here is the conversation thus far:

ZexMerquise (1 week ago)

+7

Reply | Spam

Texas is not a state. It's its own country.
Everything is bigger in Texas.
Don't mess with Texas.
They answer to the Republic, Liberty, Justice, and the right to bare arms.
REAL Americans live there. People who send their kids to fight for the freedom of this country.
If any other country took over this country, Texas would be the United State of America.

wittumy (3 days ago)

+1

Reply | Spam

zex....Texas is a state not its own country as you say. Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Ted Nugent don't speak for Texans and I find it offensive none of them said a damn word until now and try to get us to believe they are not "party" biased. Mr Beck you backed and still back torture and illegal wire taps because you're scared.....seeing you stand in front of the Alamo which represents brave determination makes me ill.

Then I posted in the next min-conversation where someone called secession "treason".

USConsitution Art 3, Sec 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

If you just leave and start your own government how is that treason? You aren't declaring war, or giving their enemy aid or comfort. Perhaps that's it, then....people think when you leave a union you automatically become it's enemy? That's not the case. I know plenty of failed marriages where the couples are still amicable with each other and work together.

Keep in mind I am not saying I am for secession, but I can understand a State deciding it has had enough with the federal government and doing the only thing it can...threatening to leave. The federal government is nothing without the states the give it life.

olivemike81 (3 days ago)

0

Reply | Spam

In another segment at the Alamo Beck was practically casting a vote for Texas to succeed. If Texas does suceed, I doubt it will, and we have Civil War 2 I'll be the first one to sign up for the military and crush those traitors. Just like we did the first time.

TotalDeadEnd (3 days ago)

0

Reply | Spam

It's not that they'll rise up to try to overthrow us. They just want to run things their way without having the government interfere. Kind of like the states that Native American Indians want.

And the word is secede, by the way.

olivemike81 (3 days ago)

0

Reply | Spam

There are ways to go about this without threatening treason.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

+1

Reply | Remove

Secession is not treason. It is a State's last line of defense against a federal government that no longer honors its side of the contract - you know that annoying Constitution thing. The government are the traitors for ignoring the law of the land they swore to uphold.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Spam

We're talking about money here. We're not talking about the federal government stealing state land or something. Obama's plan for the economy may fail but maybe you should see if it fails first before you talk about seceding from America.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Right....because money is not property and putting a debt against me, my children, and everyone in this country isn't theft? Listen to yourself. Money is what we use to buy property - it is how we are compensated for a labor - our property. The federal government has a rule book to follow - The Constitution. They are not following it and thus are governing in anarchy. Obama's plan isn't knew it is the same failed technique that prolonged the great depression.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Spam

Well actually the truth is when FDR cut back on spending the job loss rate increased. And when FDR took office in 1933 unemployment was at 25%. Just before World War II it was less than 10%.
And it's not like Obama is planning to keep all the money he spent in his plan. The idea is to stimulate the economy and eventually pay off the money spent. Not exactly stealing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Government temporary jobs are not a solution to unemployment. If it is such a great bill, why was Congress not given a reasonable amount of time to read a 700+ page bill? It was never read in session. HR1 was about paying off campaign contributers, not helping the economy. Look at the language - most of the money doesn't even have to be (or cannot be) used until 2003 before he starts campaigning again. Look: 200 million for homeless, but 2.8 billion for broadband - that's priorities!

wittumy (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Spam

mcblue....succession is not a possibility...you're believing idiots like Perry. I bet you also liked Bush didn't you?

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Aye, as a liberty loving Constitutionalist , I just adored all the work that Bush did in dismantling it. Anything is possible, and The People reserve the right to throw off government that no longer works for them and setup a new government that will defend their rights and their way of life. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime and then convince me that the people who fought a war for that right gave it up when they joined the Union voluntarily. Bush was one more bad president.

wittumy (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Spam

mcblue....let's save time....what in the constitution says they can. I, even with Bush's faults do not have a loss of faith in my government.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Remove

The Constitution limited the federal government, removed a bit of power from he States, not the People. Therefore, since it is not listed as a right removed from the States, it is a right retained by the States. I do not have faith in any -body- that lies repeatedly. Our government is too big to be blindly trusted, period. I don't want secession, I want the government to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

wittumy (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Spam

mcblue...you're still not there. Where does it say you can seceed if you don't like what the government is doing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Ah, I see... let's play that game. Show me where it says a State cannot, then. No amendment was made following the civil war that specifically removes the right of secession, so I guess that question still isn't settled. I'll stick to the federalist papers view of the Constitution and the 10th amendment which leaves all rights to the States and The People which aren't specifically granted to the feds...thus guaranteeing the right of leaving the union just as they joined it - voluntarily.

wittumy (10 hours ago)

0

Reply | Spam

mcblue.....you were the one who said they could seceed not I. I've asked for proof and you wish to push the burden of your comment to me.....what "game" am I playing?

mcbluefire (4 hours ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Wow. I've given you all the proof necessary. Anything not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right. The fact that you can't understand that is amazing to me. Any State can seceed and has the right to do so. This isn't a union any more binding than a marriage. Anything that can be created can be ended. If it helps you sleep better at night you keep believing the socialist pledge of "indivisible", I'll stick with Freedom. Good luck to you.

wittumy (1 hour ago)

0

Reply | Spam

mcblue....I'm not a socialist anymore than you're a damn fascist so cut the elementary school bullshit. Of course "anything that is created can be ended"....but there is usually a reason/cause. What in the constitution says any little bit of disent can be grounds for a state to seceed...as you suggest? Who decides whether the government is lying...Glen freaking Beck? Give me something in the constitution that identifies states' right to seceed and what is necessary to prove the right to do so.

mcbluefire (20 minutes ago)

0

Reply | Remove

You get upset too quickly. I didn't call you a socialist, I called the Pledge socialist. Glen Beck is of no significance to me, other than an American who knows something is very wrong as well. When does a State have the right to secede? Why can't you read my posts and see your answer? When The Federal Government No Longer Operates Within The Bounds Of The Constitution. That is when. More to the point whenever the people of that State no longer find it in their best interest to remain.

mcbluefire (17 minutes ago)

0

Reply | Remove

Forgive me for using elementary school bs, but you are begging me for the obvious answer that is already there and acting like it isn't. We The People run this country and our States, not Us The Government. This country has a government, not the other way around. Realize that secession is a last resort of a State when it has no other choice and quit wasting time trying to prove people don't have that choice. We hope it doesn't come to that - but it is an option.

I am now waiting for his likely reply. It is very confusing to me that we are having a long drawn out argument over something that is up to the states to decide. I sense that we are probably on the same page for most things when it comes to Liberty, except that Wittumy doesn't think we are past the point of no return thus far. I believe it could still be solved on paper, but a miracle would have to occur to get the our federal government back in line with the Constitution and suddenly voting away all the powers they've grabbed. I want that miracle, and I'm praying for it!

Fed up, yet?

I am so tired of people saying that the government had to do something to fix the financial mess. Prove it! Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive it's power to act in a financial crisis?

"The government is not here to ensure our financial welfare by borrowing against our future. No one can borrow their way out of debt. Doing nothing is exactly what our Constitution required this anarchist government to do. They think they know better than the founding fathers. The truth is they are the reason we are in this mess and they are just making it worse. Wake up! Government is never the solution it is the disease! It is fire, not warmth. It consumes, it does not create." -Marc Bessent

My thoughts on the Church transforming the world

This was in response to a letter that Reverend Carl posted to a forum I am in. He has been feeling moved by the spirit and realizes that his church isn't alive in the spirit, but rather is dead in the world. Much of what he wrote I agreed with, but when it came to the Church needing to transform the world, I felt moved to fill in the details a bit. Basically the body of Christ is here to bring people to Him so that they may know Him and choose to live a Godly life - we cannot do it by force, nor should we for it is in disobedience to God when we do.

Here is my response:

A powerful message, Reverend Carl!

I feel compelled to respond, not only to commend you for voicing what you know to be true and what you have felt but because I feel that the Holy Spirit is moving me to remind us that we must not let the church be modified by the world nor is the church to modify the world, but rather one person at a time by bringing them to know the Lord. I picked up on the portion where you state that the Church is to transform the world. As long as that is done through the church and even local policy, it may succeed, but when it rises to national and empire levels as law it fails.

We are to reach out to as many people as we can and attempt to bring them to the Lord through Jesus. We can, however, only plant the seed. It is not our time to shape the world. When we try, we fail miserably and very quickly our moral laws that we get placed into the world work to defeat us or destroy the lives of those we had hoped to protect. Examples of such laws of morality that have been put into place and are failing their intended purpose include the drug laws, the attempt to make abortion illegal, attempts to regulate sexuality between two consenting adults... to name a few.

I am concerned that a worst case scenario of abortion is that one day not only will it be 100% legal but it will also be a tool of "the state" to be ordered on people as officials see fit. I am sure the fight against this sin has gone on long before recorded history. Well intended people of our states achieved some success making the practice illegal at local and state levels. Yet, when those people pressed to have it made illegal at the federal level not only did they lose, their efforts were reversed and we eventually lost the right for states to make it illegal. Now we have legislation in process that will make it illegal for medical providers to refuse to provide abortion. This is the natural result of trying to press Christian ideals on a broken world.

As horrible as abortion is, it is a sin. The Lord sees no degree of sin. All sin is equal in His eyes. There is no question that our Lord has beaten evil and will always triumph! Evil cannot defeat his design and in adversity the Lord shows himself. With the truth that all those who are not of age to decide to accept Him, He brings them to him. Thus, there are over 50 million "American" souls who went straight to the Lord in Heaven. Does that not fly directly in the face of evil? It is a major silver lining on such a terrible cloud.

I believe that we should fight evil, but not through the force of law over those who have not chosen to accept the true path to God. We must fight evil through example and by sharing the natural law that surrounds most sins. Naturally a drug user will become addicted, endure bodily harm, and reduce their healthy lifespan. Naturally a woman who submits to abortion will feel some remorse and wonder if there could have been a better way, or even physically suffer during and after the procedure.

We need sinners in the pews, so that the message of Christ may eventually reach their hearts and then they will repent and come to know the glory of their future in Him. There is a difference between members of the body of Christ, and souls that need to hear the message so that one day they may be saved. You can, however get many of the sinners who have no desire to ever change to willingly leave your church by preaching the true Gospel of the Lord and changing the direction of the Church from one of comfort to one of principle. As an example, Chuck Baldwin sure upset many members of his church when decided to run for President on the Constitution Party ticket, and after viewing many of his sermons I can see how bringing the truth of the word of God to bear on our present day can make people decide to find a calmer church that ignores adversity and thrives on comfort and fellowship or just focuses on one or two sins, making everyone else in the Church feel like they are fine and dandy.

God gave us free will so that we may each turn to Him or commit ourselves to Hell as we chose. It is error for any man to step in and tell a person that he must conform to the will of God. Judgement has not come to America, perhaps it is true that we have lost some of the favor of our Lord... The Lord permits adversity and trials so that we may turn toward Him to seek His Love and Strength. Think about it from a different perspective: When we live comfortably in luxury are we in God's favor or are we letting ourselves be pacified into thinking we do not need Him? I tend to believe the later, for Heaven will not come to us until after we die knowing that Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins. Not the sins of the past, but for all the sins for all time that this "world" is permitted to exist.

As long as we work with each other and help our brothers and sisters by ensuring we keep true history preserved, keep our focus on the Saviour, and live as close as we can to the example of our Lord we will reach others and they will know what it is to be a Christian.

Homosexuality will lead to Secession?

{This is in response to an article that you can reach by clicking the title of this entry)

Here are the four bullet points that I am addressing:

--A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
--A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
--Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
--A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

Nay, I argue instead it is the misuse of government by all sides of the political poles that do that.

The problem here, is that these people aren't being allowed to choose who their clients will be, with exception to the last bullet. No one has the right to force anyone to do something they do not want to do, unless that person has been proven guilty in a court of law. That is a basic premise of the once great Republic of the United States.

The first three issues are ridiculous, travesties of justice, and "hate crimes" (a completely brain-dead liberal concept - but applicable here) committed by the courts that let these frivolous lawsuits come to the light of day.

The fourth bullet, however is just one organization not allowing itself to be pressured into doing something it doesn't want to do. The irony is, however, that under the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice) sex outside of marriage is still punishable yet, in the private sector that isn't the case. Do I agree with the school for ignoring that organization, no. But, it is their right.

Now, we just need to fix the reverse application. This country has swayed so far to "political correctness" that it makes immorality acceptance more important than acknowledging morality.

Truly, though, this reverse discrimination is a result of the Right Wing Christian movement that insisted on moral laws at the national level, thus alienating every non-believer and creating a new movement of anti-Christian people, even within their own ranks. We have seen a decrease in the percentage of people that believe in God as a result of people incorrectly applying their beliefs against the design of our Lord. Many in the conservative movement used their power, convinced Americans that we live in a democracy, not a Republic, and grew this government to a position of utmost power over the states, while making deals with their opponents to get unconstitutional laws passed together.

I have always tried to stay true to my faith in Christ, but I have found myself disgusted by those that forget that God gave man free will. Man must come to God by choice, and no one reserves the right to force him to accept His law when it comes to victimless affronts.

Don't make the mistake of putting words into my mouth and stating that I am for anarchy. God told us that government is to punish wickedness. That works when we punish people who have committed a crime against another. Especially a violent crime. Anything that violates a God given right. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, right to Worship, speak our minds, protect ourselves and our towns, right to contract, the right to own property, and on and on.

With that in mind, should we punish someone for being gay? I argue, no. They still have the right to contract and if they want to make their own church and claim marriage - let them. God won't honor their marriage. They are committing the sin of fornication - a sin. No worse and no better than any other sin. A person who gives their body a harmful substance, are they infringing on someone's rights? Their own, perhaps - but that is their choice and their sin. Can we help them by education, yes! Can we reach out to them with the Word of God and try to help them overcome their depression and addiction? Yes, our Lord is that strong!

But, when someone commits an act that interferes with the right or freedom of another then our government, originally the counsel of our neighbors, was and is obligated to get involved. That is the design of a government in a free nation. To protect and uphold the rights of its citizens. Not to pass laws that deny those basic rights and call it security.

Currently our government, at all levels, is in the act of treason against its citizens, from punishing those who choose not to serve a client for whatever reason, those who use tools such as property taxes to prevent true ownership or income taxes to fuel their insane desire to rule us with our own earning, to those who make moral laws suppressing the rights of those who are not interfering with others, and to those who make laws against business in the name of the employed while effectively preventing start-ups from occurring.

Yes, we should be educating against sins and more importantly evangelizing what Christ did for our fellow fallen brothers and sisters, but we cannot legislate heaven on earth. Heaven on earth is also the goal of our socialist "friends". It can never be achieved until Jesus comes back and takes His throne. Let us focus on education and loving our neighbor without condition, as He taught us until then.

Freedom cannot exist if we do not ensure it is for everyone. When a moral majority attempts to force an immoral minority to accept their laws they succeed only in pushing that minority further from the Grace of God. Only once they have been given the spark and a chance to know His love can they begin to voluntarily build within themselves a moral code. Yes, some of them want to do it and keep their sin. That, my friends, in the end is their fallacy, not ours.

We must fight tyranny in all forms and restore the rights of all people. God will separate the chaff from the wheat, not us.

Quick reply in regards to bills in the House to regulate Gardening

We are not sheep - that's what frightens them so!

At the same time, we also do not have any private land in this nation. Most of us are pacified (via color of law) into believing we do. But, even if you own your land free and clear of debt you don't own it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your property taxes and see how long you keep your land. We the people rent nearly all land anywhere in the United States. All levels of government have decided that we do not have the right to privately owned property. So, with that in mind, why would we think we can grow what we want on it?

This is exactly why We The People must shackle the government back into the confines of the Constitution and at the same time renegotiate with our State and Local governments for what we want them to do and how they will be permitted to tax. There must never be any form of direct taxation again!

Signs That You Live Under Tyranny

This is a decent article, written by Jon Roland, that gives some indications of signs to look for to indicate you live under tyranny.

I have a simple sign:

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Of course, I merely paraphrased that from Jefferson.

Jon's 4th sign is easily put into American specific terms by knowing that our government has ignored the Constitution by implementing laws that directly conflict with it, "The Patriot Act" and all the Stimulus/Bailout bills being such material. Jon's number 10 is brought to light since none of these "laws" have been challenged by the Judicial branch.

Unfortunately some of these signs are nearly unprovable - unless the opposition to Tyranny prevails and can reveal the injustices afterwards. During Hitler's rule over Germany it was only conspiracy theorists who believed that people where being killed by the millions - and until the Allies arrived and saw first hand what was going on it was unproven. Just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it isn't real. When a question isn't answered that doesn't prove that what it indicates is true, but ignoring the question and defaming the questioners sure makes it worth considering. I regard the government like an entity. In the United States of America, it is a corporate institution, thanks to Lincoln. That entity lies to us consistently, and like anyone who lies to you, even a few times, you find that you can no longer believe them on anything.

The shroud of national security needs to be repealed and pulled back permanently - the only thing that can keep our nation secure is for everyone to know everything that is written about past events, hiding no one. There is no reason for a plan of action, information gleaned under the guise of public realm, or lists of suspected people to remain under secrecy for more than a few months. Military technology details kept under secrecy for years? Sure! As long as we don't decide to share that information with other countries. The people of this country are what make it powerful and great, not the government or the government employees. [okay, off my soapbox, now!]

16 Signs That You Live Under Tyranny

by Jon Roland

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else. Here are the top 16 signs that you are living in a tyranny or heading that way.

1 Signs 1 - 5

1. Control of public information and opinion: It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing."

2. Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers: It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

3. Undue official influence on trials and juries: Non-random selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

4. Usurpation of undelegated powers: This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

5. Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force: The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Just paying the bill:¦

2 Signs 6 - 10

6. Militarization of law enforcement: Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

7. Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform: Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

8. Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers: When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

9. Use of the law for competition suppression: It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

10. Subversion of internal checks and balances: This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

3 Signs 11 - 16

11. Creation of a class of officials who are above the law: This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders."

12. Increasing dependency of the people on government: The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

13. Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them: When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

14. Use of staged events to produce popular support: Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

15. Conversion of rights into privileges: Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

16. Political correctness: Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

Unconstitutional therefore illegal.

The Patriot act is unconstitutional - it nullifies the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It also completely removes the judicial branch from involvement in a condemned citizens plight. A government that does not follow the law it was created under is a government of anarchy. Without rule of law we have nothing. Who is to obey the rules/laws when the group that makes them obeys nothing? The Patriot Act and *all* unconstitutional laws must be repealed! Defend the Supreme Law of the Land or live in a land of the whim that is law.

Safety is found in Liberty, not slavery. Everyone must wake up and take on the responsibility of their lives and the safety of the others around them or it will never work. A strong government "protecting" its citizens can never work as well as all citizens protecting each other. Criminals love a government that has disarmed the people of the country, because it makes it much easier for them to pull off crimes and get away unscathed. Just look at recent history in England. They have disarmed the citizenry and violent crime is up 40%.

Liberty will not return while we fight the details

I sent in a small note to the AFA today. I receive their action alerts and newsletter. They appear to be an organization that could help us restore Liberty, but my focus is on Liberty for all and doesn't embrace some of their views. We can not have freedom and ensure that everyone in the country obeys the laws of God. But, that's an entire other article that I will attempt to address one day.

This is a copy of the following message you sent to AFA Activism via faq

re: A call to action from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint to stop ACLU supported bill
I appreciate the message of this action alert.  It is not correct for the federal government to try to determine what public buildings are used for religious functions or to curb spending on those structures via this wasteful bill.  What is missing entirely in the Action Alert is that it is not within the federal government's Constitutional powers to be spending our money for a stimulus at all.

U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 defines what the US government has the power to do. Regulating commerce does not include stealing from our children and grandchildren to prolong a devastating depression.  It only means they can pass laws regarding commerce that crosses sovereign boundaries of the states and foreign nations.

Spending my money to further socialist, anti-Liberty, pro-authoritarian agendas is appalling to me.

It is time we stopped arguing the insignificant details of illegal legislation and started returning this country to where it should be: a beacon of Liberty to the world.  We can only do that by educating the truth about our nation's origins and dispelling the myth's and lies that are being taught in today's schools.

Sincerely,

Marc

You can see their original article by clicking the subject line for the letter I sent them.

The Dairy, er I mean Calcium food group

I had an interesting chat with my pediatrician yesterday. I asked her why it was that people need milk when they are newborn, but that milk contains lactose which is actually very tough for us to digest. She said that when we are babies we have a natural abundance of the enzyme needed to digest lactose and that we get even more of the enzyme while we nurse. Naturally all people eventually go lactose intolerant after being weened they stop producing the enzyme to digest lactose. However, since we Americans include milk and dairy products in our diets many people continue to make the enzyme their entire lives. In China, however they don't include dairy in their diets and over 90% of the adult population is lactose intolerant.

I asked what would be better in calcium than cheese (as that is the highest dairy form of calcium per oz). She said that most beans are high in calcium as well as green leafy plants. But, that honestly the best way to get Calcium is Calcium Carbonate (Tums is better than milk?).

I asked her why the food group "Dairy" isn't called "Calcium"? She said that honestly it was because it's about making it simple and that basically the things that have calcium in it, other than milk, aren't at McDonald's.

Sad, isn't it? The Dairy association has people fooled into believing they need Dairy when in all actuality they need Calcium. Milk by the glass is a horrible way to get calcium - cheese is over 6x higher in calcium, whereas Tums is even better for you.

1 fl oz of milk has about 39.5mg of calcium (1 glass has 315mg). 1oz of swiss and Gruyere cheeses have 281.7mg of calcium. 1oz of Brick, CHeddar, Colby, Edam, and Gouda have 201mg; Mozzarella is lower with 153mg, Forget about Cottage and cream cheese as they are even lower than a fl oz of milk at 31.3mg. Info pulled from here: http://www.manbir-online.com/htm2/osteo.4.htm  Yes, it's true that comparing oz to fl-oz is not precise, but honestly I'd eat an oz of cheese faster than I'd drink a fl-oz of milk.  But, then comparing a glass of milk to 1.5 thinly cut square pieces of cheese doesn't make any sense at all.)

Tums extra strength 750 - 2 tablets = 600mg of calcium. That is 60% of USRDA.

Wow, so we should get 1000mg of calcium a day? With milk that's 4 - 8oz glasses of milk, or three 0.7oz pieces of cheese - or 4 tums tablets.

Now, let's look at costs... A gallon of milk is basically $3.70 even though the fuel prices that "caused" it to climb have gone down to what it was when milk was $2.78/gal. (March 2004) - based on my bls.gov search. A gallon of milk is 128 fl oz which is 5 full calcium servings. Not too shabby at 74 cents per 1000mg of calcium.

Cheese (Swiss at wally world) is $2.49 for 8oz (about 12 slices) 3 2/3 oz is needed (according to the packet for 100% calcium). We'll go with the other website which says basically 3.54oz would be necessary for 1000mg. So, this bag of cheese gives 2.25 full calcium servings. Pretty poor at 90 cents per 1000mg of calcium.

Tums is $5.49 for 96 tablets (24 full calcium servings). The winner at 23 cents per 1000mg of calcium.  Last container I bought was 140 tablets, was the smoothies extra strength which costs more than regular Tums, but still comes out to less than 23 cents per 4 tablets.

Not only that, but according to my doc the calcium in Tums is the easiest one to get in your system, so you get more of the calcium into your system and pass less through your digestive track than you do with dairy or other calcium sources.

Ron Paul on Homeschooling

Ron Paul - one of the peeps in DC that is awake.

A quick look at Neo-Conservatives

Here are a few videos that quickly and simply explain the difference between a Neo-Conservative (Republican) and a Conservative (Libertarian and Constitutionalist).

Enjoy!

Decisions decisions...

I have to say it has not been easy deciding who to vote for this election.  I have been on the fence about Bob Barr as I am a registered Libertarian, and I find his knowledge on Liberty to be strong and his talk easy to listen to, but he still ends up grating someone or something before the end of his talks.  Barrb may be a good nickname for him.   Alright, though, seriously - he didn't pull it off properly when he had the chance to unite with Ron Paul and help the message of Liberty grow to new heights.

I've also known about Chuck Baldwin and read the Constitution Party platform.  I haven't had an opportunity to really hear the man speak until tonight, though.  Simply put, he is a powerful speaker.  Much more powerful than John McCain.  He promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and that my friends is my biggest requirement to anyone I want to see in office.  Someone that will actually do it after put into office.

Don't get me wrong, I like and respect Senator McCain, however I could never vote for someone that disregards their oath of office whenever politics makes it convenient or "necessary". 

Obama's message is a one of, er hope?  What?  How is creating several hundred more government funded programs that we cannot afford a message of hope?  Can anyone prove to me that he isn't just blustering out campaign promises while trying to ensure that the democratic head of the liberal party is in the white house?  Certainly he's a good speaker.  Granted he sounds like he believes in himself.  But, he doesn't sound to me like he believes in anyone other than himself.

Chuck Baldwin Speech at JBS 50th Anniversary Friday, 03 October 2008 17:06

The page I found this on, at jbs.org also had a good speech from Ron Paul.  Check the link for more.

NRA votes for an evil

Even though the NRA gave a perfect score to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, they recently decided to just do what they always do in every presidential election - back the Republican.  No matter how liberal or how bad a record that candidate has with gun control.

I sent them my .06 cents (that's 2 cents in 2008 versus 1913 dollars = $.0006)

Where is the back-bone of the NRA? I cannot believe this organization has backed John McCain. With Chuck Baldwin and the Libertarian Party to opt for, this organization has let down gun owners and patriots across our land.

I doubt I will ever become a dues paying member of the NRA, now. I'll keep hoping that this association wakes up next election cycle, but for now it appears to want to stay in business as usual.  

Marc

Vote against the two party system if you want change!

I wrote this in response to a political string myself and some friends and family are on:Exactly! ...Good sir!  I am glad to see you are angry!  I have been angry about the color of law that has ruled this nation since I discovered it layer by disgusting layer starting back while I served in the US Navy and really unraveling in 1996/7 when I read the book, "How to cook a Vulture" by Lynn Meredith.  She wasn't the first to point out what a sham our Income Tax is or how government programs with great intentions actually hurt more people than they help.  Government programs have a double edged sword as nothing good can come of using guns to enforce compassion, socialism, capitalism, or morality.  As soon as something is given to the government it is the rule of force to ensure it happens.  Many of us think governments role is to help us all by stepping in to help, but when a new law strips anyone of any right infringing freedom or creates a victim-less crime to ensure someone else gets something they aren't rightfully entitled to, it is a travesty.  

It could be theft from the mass to ensure someone gets medical insurance.  It looks good on paper!  We can all afford to chip in a little bit of our income to ensure the poor can get medical insurance!  Seriously, it's a noble idea and on the surface, good to do.  So we created medicare.  Then doctors who accepted medicare had extra paperwork added to them and new regulations they had to abide by so they had to hire more staff, which means they had to raise their rates - except for the medicare covered people as the government regulated how much the doc could get for a medicare patient.  Medical care started to go up instead of down with each new regulation added by the government.  Eventually it became no longer a luxury to own medical insurance, but a necessity.  Then doctors had to get bigger staffs to keep up with all the insurance claims they had.  Then record keeping became regulated and the doctors found they either needed more staff or they had to outsource their record keeping which added even more $$ to their operational costs.

That doesn't cover every issue created by the government entering into the medical regulation and insurance business, but it is a very high level view that any doctor will readily tell you is true.  I've had this conversation with several of them - those of you that know me know how many doctors I've met over the past several years.

Don't even get me started on the property tax theft to fund "education"!  In Leesburg county, VA in 2006 they spent $18,000 per student for "education"!  Where does all that money go?  The parents get the supplies and clothe the child.  The teachers are lucky to take home $40K pretend that benefits double the salary to $80K and 4.5 students have just paid for the teacher - what does the money for the other 16+ students go to?!  A private school runs between $3,000 and $6,000 a student and somehow they *make a profit* while the public school receiving $18k a student needs subsidizing?!  Florida isn't much better.  Brevard county spends $13K per student.  Isn't that lovely?  Oooops, I got started.  Dernit!

The reality is, each time we start a good program it gets used in ways that it was never intended to be used and it is the force of law.  Law = gun.  Don't believe me?  Ask restaurant owners in CA that refused to stop using trans fats in their deserts.  CA legislators had passed a law prohibiting the use of trans fats, which to many people make foods taste better.  The restaurants that refused to stop using them where fined.  The restaurants that didn't pay their fines and/or continued to serve foods with trans fats had a visit from the police who then arrested the owner or manager and shut the restaurants down.  If they resisted what did the police do?  You got it, they pulled their guns.  Think laws are nice little things to remind us not to do or ensure we do something and that if we disregard it we'll go home with a little wrist-slap?

Whereas states reserve the right to make silly laws like CA did on the trans fats, the federal government is bound by the Constitution Article 1, Section 8 limiting what it is allowed to make laws about.  The tenth amendment, which has yet to be repealed, specifically says that all other powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remain in the hands of the people and the states, respectively.  Of course, the only thing that can hold the government to those bounds are the people.  The only peaceful tool we have is to ensure we vote in people that aren't going to wipe their butt with their oath the next day after they take office.  What is the oath of the President of the United States?  

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Senate and the Congress take this oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Members of the military both enlisted and office also say the above bold portion in their oath.  The only difference for them, truly is that they must first obey the orders of their superior officers and the President.

Now, if those people running our government had been doing what they swore to do, how did we get all these agencies, programs, and institutions that only the States had the power to create within their own jurisdictions?

Think Obama is going to let the Constitution get in the way of creating all the social programs he has on his list ?  Or that he's really only going to stick it to our richest people in the US to pay the bill?  Keep in mind that the richest people have little problem moving to another country if he really can convince the house to implement his several hundred new programs.  

Believe that McCain will let the Constitution get in the way of maintaining an undeclared war in Iraq, voting away even more of our rights than happened under the Bush administration with nice packages like the patriot act (which he voted for), the bailout (which he voted for), or the previous bailout package that the houses voted on (which most all of us do not know about) back in July 24, 2008 granting the treasury to extend Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac an nearly unlimited lifeline with no conditions.  HR 3221  It also created a new housing oversight agency - the Federal Housing Finance Agency.  It was made into law by the President on July 30th.  It even gave the Secretary of the Treasury temporary authority to purchase obligations.  Neato! Of course, McCain didn't vote as he was out campaigning.

The only person that stood up as a candidate in the republican party this year and said that he believed in the Constitution was Ron Paul.  Who was invited to the Republican convention?  Joe Lieberman one of the most left leaning democrats in history.  There is no longer a difference between the two parties.  It used to be that the one difference left was that the republicans grew government slower than democrats, but during the time that the republicans held the houses, and the presidency the single largest growth of government *ever* occurred.  They used 9/11 as the excuse and they grew government 40%.

The only way to send a message to Washington this year is to first, really discover what your political beliefs are - temporarily suspend what you think they have to be based on the party you used to belong to and think of it as "what restrictions I want on *myself* and my neighbors" - take the world's smallest political quiz.

Next research some of the third party platforms and see which one most closely fits you.  Really read their platforms and investigate why they believe in it.  You may find what seems completely bazaar at first glance to make complete sense when you think about it from a different direction for a bit.

Now for the most important step.  Overcoming the nonsense about how the democrat or the republican is a bigger evil than the other and how you must vote for one of them to ensure your vote isn't wasted and the big bad evil one doesn't get in.  The only wasted vote is a vote that is made in contrast to your principles.  Simply put, if you vote for the lesser of two evils you are actually telling the lesser evil that you support his ideals and he smiles and is grateful to you and does exactly what you have told him you will permit.

 "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. " -- John Quincy Adams

The wasted vote concept is a product of the two party system fear-fully clinging to their strangle hold on the government.

Oh, yeah, and lastly - vote!  Not voting doesn't send a message to anyone.  Apathy is exactly what the two party system depends on.  Sure they make a big pandering play to the "please register" nonsense during the campaign, but they really only want to register someone that will vote for their party.

The only way to begin change this election is to get the third parties to obtain a combined vote of over 15%, thus rattling the big two with fear of the people. First we have to get these third-parties to actually have ballot access every year without spending millions to get signatures to obtain the access.  Signatures are not free - most people who do signature collections charge $2 a signature.  In a state where 140,000 signatures are needed for ballot access....that's $280,000 just for the signatures, then there are legal fees to defend the signatures, file the signatures, and most third parties end up in court hoping to over-turn an election supervisor decision that uses an un-dotted i or non-crossed t argument to keep the candidate off the ballot.  Meanwhile, in Texas, the republican and democrat parties got access on the ballot even though they didn't have their candidates or running-mates selected 70 days prior to the election which is a Texas state law.  Nope - the parties are *above* the law. 

For more of my ramblings about the recent economic nonsense scare (there is a problem with the economy, but it's not what wall street and the politicians have talked about so far) you are welcome to read my blog and comment away. 

I hope to hear from more of you on this string.

Marc