DESPERATION AND WHO WE, THE PEOPLE ARE

For months, there has been a concerted and desperate effort by Socialist left-wingers in our different levels of government, along with certain organizations like the NAACP, to have someone stand out as the leader of the Tea Party movements, including other “RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC” minded movements. Allow me to address this effort with some education and clarification.
The Tea Party Movement was and is still designed to be a civil disobedience style of protest against our governments' (local, state and federal) bureaucratic policies which are not supported by We, the People, are not Constitutionally-principled and defy being fiscally conservative (to name just a few principles).
The whole essence of this movement, from its beginning, has been to educate ourselves, our family and friends and our local constituency on the principles of our Constitution and the influential philosophies that guided our Founding Fathers during their efforts while writing the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. With that education, we were to find and recruit like-minded citizens to encourage and support them in their bids to run for various offices (again, from local up to federal offices). Upon supporting and electing these citizens into office, our work is still not complete. Along with replacing the remaining "professional politicians" who have been part of the Socialist agenda that has been infiltrating our society and our government for many decades, we still have the duty to monitor the activities of those whom are elected into office and ensure that they are "practicing what they preached". If we find those who get indoctrinated into the "bureaucratic fiascos" found in our governments, then we find a better replacement and vote them out of office in the next election. With this ongoing process, which requires hard work and dedication, We the People will reform our government on all levels back to the principles of a true Republic.
Now, as related to the latest baiting by far-left Socialist Democrats, RINOs and organizations like the NAACP, they still don't understand that the Tea Party movement is NOT A PARTY-ORGANIZED effort, but a citizen-initiated movement that has millions of like minded citizens who are willing to get more involved in our governments' actions and demand the changes that will RESTORE THE REPUBLIC for We, the People. This ignorance has fostered their efforts to try and bait "someone" to stand up and act as our leader of the movements. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE THE PEOPLE OF THE TEA PARTY AND OTHER "RESTORE THE REPUBLIC" MINDED GROUPS DO NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDIVIDUAL LEADER. WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALL LEADERS WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING OUR GOVERNMENTS BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, BEING MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND ELIMINATING THE BIG LOBBYISTS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES!! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM; UP WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

BHO'S FINAL WAR DECLARATION AGAINST THE SOUTH

So, the BHO administrations and the Justice Department made it official today in suing Arizona over SB 1070, on Constitutional justifications. Now there is irony at its extreme: BHO and the Justice Department trying to use the Constitution to their favor (what a farce). One main argument is based on the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) where all federal laws are the supreme Law of the Land, and all state laws are binding to such federal laws. Well, BHO, you just opened your mouth and stuck your foot into it. Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1819, with the Marbury vs. Madison case, interpreted the clause to mean that the states may not interfere with the functioning of the federal government and that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law. In the case of Arizona and SB 1070, this state law does not interfere with the functioning of the federal government (which includes protecting our borders), but instead assists the federal statute by implementing the same rules as the federal statute with punishment clauses that are less stringent than the federal statute. Hence, Arizona’s SB 1070 is not interfering with the functions of the federal government (which is required by the Constitution to adhere to any federal statute); it is consistent with the federal statute. As for trying to use Marshall’s statement that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law, there is not justification from BHO’s Justice Department that SB 1070 is an inconsistent state law when it mirrors the federal statute.
Once again, BHO is proving his arrogance towards the true Law of the Land and will pervert it to meet his ultimate agenda: the End of the Republic and the implementation of all of his Socialist programs. On top of this, by following thru on this federal lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070, he is outwardly declaring War on the South. With his “restriction of access” to over a thousand acres of federal land in the Sonoran desert and Buenos Aires National Forest (which has allowed the Mexican drug and illegal immigrant cartels to set up “shop” in these areas), with his completely inadequate response to the greatest environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (and the federal administration’s proven collusion with BP in controlling/limiting the type of efforts taken to clean up and stop the oil spill), and now his official lawsuit against a Southwestern state law that mirrors the federal statute, President Obama has openly declared his disdain for the Southern portion of the USA. If you don’t agree, prove me wrong. I’m all ears and open for any other interpretation.

ARE WE GOING TO GIVE AWAY OUR MIRACLE?

From Franklin Graham thru nationaldayofprayer.org:

"We are thankful for the abundant blessings You have bestowed on America. Our forefathers looked to You as Protector, Provider, and the Promise of hope. But we have wandered far from that firm foundation. May we repent for turning our backs on Your faithfulness."

This was posted by a good friend and spiritual Patriot on Facebook earlier today. I read the prayer from Franklin and was at a loss for words that would equate to the message. That was until I then read (on Halberdash.com and also recognized a posting from another friend and Patriot) where Fidel Castro claimed that the HC reform law was a "MIRACLE". To further quote Fidel: "We consider health reform to have been an important battle and success of his (Obama's) government. It's really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence....the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago."
This from a country where their health care system is, according to International Red Cross, one of the most dismal and inadequate systems they have ever supported. One where the Cuban prison system provides negligible health care to their prisons (see http://www.therealcuba.com ). One where the peasants living outside of Havana and within the slums of Havana have no viable access to health care, except for help from the International Red Cross and other similar organizations contributing help to the needy.
He (Castro) needs to recognize true MIRACLES: the miracle where Jesus returned from the dead so that we may follow him into God's graces; the miracle that brought together "terrorists" and "activists" to create the greatest country on Earth, with the guidance of God's Law to establish the Law of the Land, our Constitution of the United States; the miracle of charity from the American people when foreign nations such as Indonesia, Haiti and, yes, CUBA during their time of need for help due to, basically, utter physical destruction of their countrysides.
Franklin Graham is right in that We, the People have gradually turned our faces away from the firm foundation which God guided our Founding Fathers to base our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution upon. We, the People allowed this inflitration of socialistic/progressive/marxist (call it what you want; it still smells) into our society and our government over the past 100 years. We allowed this thru the concept of apathy. We relied on our elected representatives to govern accordingly and represent our needs and didn't give the time needed to monitor their activities. Thru apathy, we gave our God-given rights and liberties to our government (on all levels). And now we are having to fight and scratch (figuratively speaking) to restore our God-given rights and to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC.
That fight has been in full swing since early last year and will continue until our Republic is restored. But we cannot win this fight for our country, our children and our future generations if we don't recognize that our rights and freedoms are blessed upon us by Our Father and cannot be bestowed upon us by government laws. This MIRACLE, the United States of America, cannot be returned to it's citizens until WE,the Citizens of the USA recognize and reaffirm God's role in our lives, liberties and our country. Only then shall we prevail, with God's Blessings.

THE GAMES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MUST END

It is not that I believe, but that I know in my heart that our government has been perverted by the most vile of corruption: greed. We watch the games that are played on Capitol Hill, including negotiating/writing a bill of unconstitutional boundaries behind the symbolic "closed doors" where one party is the only one represented while the minority party stands outside and cries to We, the People of the injustice of it all. Yet, when you truly investigate the "leadership" of the minority party, you discover that they have played the same game before. You also discover that many within the minority party have voted on legislation based on what they can "barter" for, as opposed to the principles and values they should uphold. You also discover, upon a broader review, that the vast majority of members in both houses of Congress have voted based on influences by lobbyists and "outside" concerns, as opposed to voting based on what We, the People are calling for. You notice, as well, that while the minority party votes against major pieces of legislation that We, the People have voiced our concerns about, they have also voted in favor of other bills that have increased our federal spending levels, increased our national debt and continue to devalue our national currency. The gravest thought to all of this is that the members of the minority party have been doing this with full knowledge of the repercussions of their actions on our country. We see an occasional "light" when legislation is introduced that bears teeth in reigning in our federal government (ex: Ron Paul's HR 1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act) yet the legislation, after being initially assigned to a committee, gathers dust because the leadership within the committee and the specific house of Congress are not in favor of considering such legislation. And this is regardless as to whether the proposed legislation carries over 1/2 of the membership within the particular house of Congress as cosponsors.
Where is the true concern/outrage and appropriate action from our elected representatives (from both houses) as regarding the actions taken by BHO and his "administration"? We hear of speeches on both floors and interviews on radio and TV regarding constitutional questions about the executive branch but we only see very limited action on the floor of both houses. It is truly just a political game engineered to allow certain members on Capitol Hill to "remind the sheeples of their grave concerns" so that they can appear as supportive of the outrage from We, the People. In the meantime, we see executive policies being made by BHO's Circle of Friends (ex: the "pay czar's" declared decision as to how to limit the pay of certain executives). These "czars/advisors" are making policies, with other outside influences as their supporting guidance, and then passing these policies onto their puppet/mouthpiece whom We, the People know as POTUS. BHO is the sophisticated, eloquent spokesperson for the advanced movements by the Socialists to degrade our nation and eventually turn our country into a pauper state. All of this so that our country can be at the whim of intenational interests (research the Bildenberg Group and George Soros, for starters). Yet, while We, the People declare our outrage towards the policies and the unconstitutional group of "policy-makers", our representation on Capitol Hill play their game of sending out their "talking heads" in an effort to convince us that they hear and support our grievances, while doing nothing of substantial quality to stop the madness within our executive branch. And all the while, our Senate Judiciary Committee continues to approve of nominees for federal judge positions (as offered by BHO) who have no intention of judging based on constitutional law but instead will continue to judge based on outside interests and "personal feelings".
Our Republic has become a shambles from what it was intended to be. The Socialist movement has taken a stranglehold on our country within the past 50 years and are aggressively pushing their agenda which they have slowly been preaching into our society and our government for appx. 100 years. The past four generations of American citizens have allowed this to happen due to our complacency to exercise our God-given right to vote and by voting (when we did) based on which "mouthpiece" was saying the right thing, as opposed to looking at where they had stood on important issues of the times prior to running for the particular seat of government.
So where does this leave us? We can find honest, principled, moral citizens (they are out there) and encourage them to be our representation in Wasington (and in our state capitols and local governments). This as the goal to restore our Republic and put government back within the constitutional boundaries that they should have always been abiding by. Otherwise, we have another choice, which I would regret seeing our country turn to. The choice is up to We, the People as individual citizens of our country. The choice is up to You, the concerned citizen to make. I've made mine and have been exercising it for what seems like an eternity. When are You going to make yours and declare it loudly for all to hear?

LEAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AS IS (AND HERE'S WHY)

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, One nation under GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”

ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":

1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.

You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).

Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:

In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.

3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION

As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:

A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"

B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"

Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.

To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.

I welcome any dissenting arguments.