you didn't receive this e-mail newsletter directly from us, we would
like to add you to our mailing list and keep you informed about
important issues facing this country. You can
receive these updates directly each week by writing to us at the
address below and leave your email address with a request to be added to
"Talmage Pearce saved me
over $750 a year on my property insurance and I received my unused
premiums back from my old companies."
Order DVD copies of our meetings
on Monday nights!
ATF Agent John
Dodson,Trevor Loudon, John Huppenthal, Michael Farris, Russell Pearce,
Sheriff Joe, Matt Salmon, Doug Ducey, John Huppenthal and more!
(Just $10 + Shipping. Be sure to let me know which speaker you want!)
Please order your DVD here through secure Pay Pal!
Click on this button:
Putin vs Obama!
Who do you think is winning?
Obama's real line in the Sand!
Article by Bill Tatro
In the middle of an
International crisis, the President (U.S. that is) drew the line in the
sand and finally, finally, decided to back up his words with actions.
Former Defense Secretary
Robert Gates in January said "if you cock the pistol, you've got to be
willing to fire it." Apparently Barrack Obama is exhibiting to the
world his metal. Don't mess with me, his words and actions are saying,
loud and clear. No matter what turmoil is engulfing the world our
President will not be deterred from a couple of rounds of golf in
Florida. When the going gets tough, the tough get going-to the links.
When the normal tourist
plays a round of golf it may cost a few hundred dollars. (Senior
discount not included) When the President of the United States takes to
the fairways it cost you and me several hundred thousand dollars,
perhaps even millions. Stoking up the family station wagon (Air Force
One), piling in all the family (staff and secret service) and providing
room, board and souvenirs for everyone becomes a very impressive
tactical and expensive operation. Especially, when it is a last minute
decision to hit the little white ball.
But the President will not be dissuaded no matter the cost or inconvenience, the line in the sand has been drawn.
I am so glad that Barrack
Hussein Obama has allowed nothing, such as perhaps the most serious
crisis since Cuba and the missiles, to interfere with his "36." This
kind of guts and determination and consistent attention to detail
should make those in North Korea, Beijing, Iran and even Moscow sit up
and take notice.
Many will point to Bush 1's
fishing trips, Reagan's chopping wood, and even Bill's Monica
distraction as justification for time off from the rigors of the job.
However I am not sure that
when the missiles moved into Cuba that JFK drew his line in the sand
nor any of the other President's mentioned did the same with as much
vigor as Barrack Obama did this past weekend.
I will play! He proclaimed to the world.
Yes, Gates said "don't cock
it unless you intend to use it" and most assuredly the United States
President has proven he will not back down in the face of adversity. 18
on Saturday, 18 on Sunday and with a little luck 9 before the sun set
after the family wagon pulled into town.
Now that is drawing the line in the sand and sticking to it.
Today, March 6, marks the
anniversary of the fall of the Alamo outside of San Antonio, Texas,
back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots
withstood Santa Anna's seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man,
the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those
ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet,
they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this
generation of spoiled Americans.
It is difficult to recall
that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally-known
frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 26 years old
with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with
properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were
real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through
their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any
of us do. However, there was something different about them. They
possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and
Liberty is an easy word to
say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom involves much more
than financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her
constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an
only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are
inseparable: destroy one and all will die.
Early in the siege, Travis
wrote these words to the people of Texas: "Fellow Citizens &
Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under
Santa Anna...The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,
otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword... I have answered
the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from
the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat... VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S.
The Lord is on our side..."
As you read those words,
remember that Travis and the others did not have the National Education
Association (NEA) telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their
notions of honor and patriotism were. They didn't have the Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC) telling them they were a hate group. A
hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed
extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their
forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks. The TSA didn't have
them on a terrorist watch list. Neither did they have pastors
constantly filling their hearts and minds with this imbecilic
"Obey-the-government-no-matter-what" misinterpretation of Romans
chapter 13. (Please be sure to read my P.S. below.)
The brave men at the Alamo
labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was "the land
of the free and the home of the brave." They believed God was on their
side and the freedom of future generations depended on their courage
and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their
sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.
By today's standards, the
gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no
chance of winning--none. Yet, the call for pragmatism and compromise
was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, "Victory or
Please try to remember the
heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political, corporate, and
religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, socialism, and
political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when
ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were
willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.
One thing is certain: those
courageous champions at the Alamo did not fight and die for a political
party or for some lesser of two evils mantra. They fought and died for
a principle--and that principle was liberty and independence.
On this day in 1836, those 186 defenders of the Alamo joined the
ranks of the world's greatest freedom fighters. Patriots such as the 70
Christian men from the Church of Lexington who stood against 800
British troops on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green and the hundreds
more who joined them at the Concord Bridge; men such as the great
Scottish freedom fighter, William Wallace, and his band of 2,000 men
who stood against an English force of over 13,000 men at the Battle of
Stirling Bridge on September 11, 1297, and again on July 22, 1298, when
Wallace and 5,000 Scots went up against an English force of over
15,000 men at the Battle of Falkirk; and let's not forget the single
greatest example of men who chose to fight for liberty against the
greatest of odds: the 300 Spartans who squared off against more than
100,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae in August or September of
480 B.C. These stories--and hundreds like them--are the heritage of
free men everywhere. And the willingness to stand against overwhelming
odds for the cause of liberty is certainly America's heritage.
Today, however, our national
leaders are in the process of turning the greatest free nation to ever
exist, the United States of America, over to the very forces that the
Alamo defenders--and America's Founding Fathers--gave their lives
resisting. And, for the most part, the vast majority of Americans seem
completely apathetic to the fetters being fastened around their necks.
On second thought, do Travis, Bowie, and Crockett look foolish, or do we?
"The Very Origin of Existence of the United States"
Even though the Framers of
the Constitution were very careful to give only a few delegated powers
to each of the three branches of government, that is, about twenty
powers to congress, six areas of power to the president, and only
eleven kinds of cases assigned to the federal courts, still there were
some who were not satisfied that enough protection had been provided to
the people and the states in the Constitution. They therefore let it
be known that a Bill of Rights had to be included in order to receive
their endorsement. This was the reason the Bill of Rights was nearly
the first item of business taken up by the new government.
When a Bill of Rights was
suggested at the last minute in the convention, some of the Framers
said they did not think it was necessary because they had not given the
national government enough power to trample on the rights of the
people. Some of the wiser observers of history, like George Mason,
however, knew human nature and he would not be satisfied until the
protection of a Bill of Rights was added.
It is interesting that the
Bill of Rights includes a Preamble, which most Americans have never
read because it is not included in most printings. It reflects the
importance the Founders placed on the protection of some very special
rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights:
Conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting
the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses be added; and as extending the ground of public
confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of
its institution, [be it] resolved...."
Freedom of Religion: The Most Important of the Rights Listed
The freedoms of speech and
press are guaranteed in the very first amendment to the Constitution
and thereby prevent the federal government from any action dealing with
these two sacred rights of citizens. If any laws were needed in these
areas they were to be left to the states' jurisdiction. It would seem
then that that was all that was needed to keep the national government
in check, since the freedom to say and write whatever one wishes would
give one complete freedom of conscience to also believe whatever one
wishes. But the Founders knew something more was needed. Constitutional
scholar Dallin H. Oakes explains that the freedom to practice one's
religious beliefs should receive an even greater position than the
freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment. Said he:
belief and preaching must be protected against government action....
But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious
actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are
already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the
Constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of
religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free
exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious
preaching and action than to other kinds of speech and action. Treating
actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other
systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of
religion in the United States Constitution." (Dallin H. Oakes,
"Fundamentals of Our Constitutions," Utah's Constitution Day
Celebration, September 17, 2010, emphasis in original)
It should also be remember
that Thomas Jefferson placed religious freedom on the highest pedestal
when he wrote his own tombstone inscription. He did not even mention
the fact that he had been twice elected to the presidency of the United
States. Instead, he included as one of his accomplishments, by which
he wished to be remembered, that he was the author of the "Statute of
Virginia for Religious Freedom." Jefferson's philosophy that the number
one protection that government can give individuals, is also reflected
in the inscription which encircles the inside of the rotunda of the
Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C.:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
President Jefferson was insistent that the right of conscience of individuals was completely outside the purview of government:
provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which
protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil
authority. It has not left the religion of its citizens under the
power of its public functionaries." (Bergh 16:332, 1809. Quoted in The
Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 605 )
President George Washington
was equally emphatic that one only need answer to God and not to
government for his religious opinions and mode of worship:
often expressed my sentiments that every man, conducting himself as a
good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious
opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to
the dictates of his own conscience." (To the General Committee of the
United Baptist Churches in Virginia. Fitzpatrick 30:321n, (1789. Quoted
in The Real George Washington, p. 764 )
Congress itself, in its code of laws, has consistently held that:
"The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States." And that:
"Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and fundamental freedom..." (22 U.S. Code § 6401)
"Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The Founders knew that
beliefs drive actions. History is full of such examples. Without the
ability to act on ones' beliefs, the beliefs are really not fully
protected as sacred. For this reason, the Founders included not only
the prohibition on the federal government from telling people what they
must believe (establishing a religion), but also a prohibition against
the federal government from preventing citizens to freely exercise
their religious beliefs (prohibiting the free exercise thereof). In
America, citizens were free to show by their actions what they believed
in their hearts. The Bible is filled with examples, parables, and
doctrines to the effect that unless a person's actions reflect a
person's belief, he is a hypocrite, a whited sepulchre, or as sounding
brass or tinkling cymbal. Actions must follow beliefs if humanity is to
rise above the natural man. It would seem then that any government
which prevents its citizens from acting on their beliefs is reflecting
the tool of tyrants and is using an age-old technique to gain master
over its citizenry.
Should there be any limits on the exercise of one's religion?
Does freedom of religion,
then, mean one can do anything he wants to do in the name of religion?
The Founders said not exactly. Like any other freedom, it must be held
within the restraints of morality and reason. But freedom of religion,
as well as speech and press, are such sensitive issues, the Founders
felt that any limits on these must be established by state and local
governments, where abuses can be more easily detected and corrected and
where differences can be allowed from one place to another. Hence, the
prohibitions in the First Amendment are directed toward the federal
government and are absolute. Not even the federal courts were to take
on such cases. The states were left free to establish any regulations
in these matters.
Thomas Jefferson explains
that even the freedom to exercise one's religion has its limitation
when it comes violating another's unalienable rights. One cannot commit
a crime and justify it on the basis of religion:
is lawful in the commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the
ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and
whatsoever is prejudicial to the commonwealth in their ordinary uses,
and therefore prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to
churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the
ordinary course of things, or in a private house, to murder a child. It
should not be permitted any sect, then, to sacrifice children. It is
ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves and lambs.
They may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the
state required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a
siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This
is the true extent of toleration." (Ford 2:102. Quoted in The Real
Thomas Jefferson, p.603)
In other words, government
has a legitimate role in protecting the life, liberty, and property of
its citizens from those who would infringe on them, even for so-called
But what happens when
government officials begin to think they can and should regulate the
way people operate their businesses and begin to demand that they do
things that violate the people's conscience and their religious beliefs
in areas that have nothing to do with protecting unalienable rights?
The encroachment of government on the exercise of religion today
In a recent interview,
Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Beckett Fund for Religious
Liberty, gave this summary of the intrusion of the federal government
on the exercise of religious freedom:
we're currently seeing increased threats to religious autonomy, which
is eroding our right to religious freedom. Certainly, in the context of
colleges and universities, we're seeing more and more policies that
are being set that would require religious student organizations to
have leaders that are nonbelievers and these policies are forcing these
religious student groups off campus. There are also threats to
religious individuals in their professions and not being coerced to
acting in a way that's contrary to their religious beliefs. So, for
example, Christian pharmacists who object to dispensing
abortion-inducing drugs and state regulations that would force them to
dispense these drugs even when the state can very easily permit them to
refer these customers elsewhere, yet they are forcing them to do so
against their religious convictions. Another example is photographers
or innkeepers who would be forced by regulations to provide commercial
services to those whose behavior is censured by their religious
example, a Christian wedding photographer was fined because she refused
to photograph a ceremony that violated her religious teachings on the
family. Freedom of conscience is the right to not be forced to do
something that violates the truth that God has spoken to your heart.
And so it's that freedom of conscience that undergirds the freedom of
This intrusion of government
into the exercise of religious is fueled by a misapplication of the
word "discrimination." Americans have been fed such a steady diet of
anti-discrimination propaganda that many now think that any kind of
discrimination is wrong even in our own affairs. But all of us
discriminate all the time and every day in what we wear, what we eat,
our daily activities, what we chose for leisure, with whom we
associate, where we live, and in a hundred other ways. Truly free
people are a discriminating people, but, of course, there should be no
discrimination in the application of law (all laws should be made for
all the people), before the bar of justice (protecting equal rights), or
in the use of the public funds for public purposes (equal benefit of
legitimate tax-payer dollars).
When governments begin to
mandate that a person must perform an act which directly contradicts
the way a person choses to exercise his religious beliefs, it is an
affront to the Founders, to the American way of life, and to the
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. This is especially
egregious when the federal government does so because, under the
Founders' formula for freedom, it is strictly prohibited from involving
itself in such matters, as before noted. It is opening the door wide
to tyranny over the most precious American freedoms and, hence, to all
our freedoms. Restricting our exercise of religious beliefs is, in
effect, denying us religious freedom, the most precious of all our
Hopefully, the time is coming when enough Americans will awaken to a sense of our awful situation.
Speaker John Boehner and other Rino's are trying to wear us down on Amnesty for Illegal Aliens?
Article by J. Robert Smith
Tony Lee at Breitbart's Big Governmentreported
a few days ago that John Boehner still craves immigration reform this
year. Boehner also wants to be speaker again in 2015, goes a Washington Timesreport.
No, he doesn't. The speaker's immigration drum-banging has him acting
more like a man who's already signed his own political death warrant.
Boehner's insistence on pushing immigration reform this year only
harms his party's candidates - up and down the ballot - this November.
Why raise Boehner's
doggedness for amnesty again? Isn't it old news? Because of the way
politics are played today, that's why. The Democrats do it
ceaselessly, and RINOs are learning. The tactic is "wear them down and
wear them out." That's what the speaker's doing. In the face of
strong public opposition to immigration reform that amounts to a grant of amnesty (the only sort that President Obama will accept), Boehner keeps hoofing for "reform."
Yes, we know: Boehner's
doing the old soft shoe, politically. He has important caveats
attached to his notion of immigration reform. The midterm elections
are coming, so don't tee off Hispanics, goes the conventional wisdom.
Boehner and his establishment Republicans are merely attempting to
reassure Hispanics that their passion for amnesty hasn't been forsaken
by the GOP.
Add that the speaker's
desire is to care for and feed big business interests, since big
business strokes lots of checks for Republicans. Big business wants amnesty, however it's sugarcoated.
From a Rasmussen survey conducted
last October, via the Federation for American Immigration Reform
(FAIR), we learn that Hispanics aren't wild about blank-check amnesty.
In this critical election year, here's the big takeaway: "Hispanic
voters ranked immigration reform last (31%) among a list of four
priority issues, behind the economy (62%), healthcare (57%), and
Republicans aren't going to
fetch many Hispanic votes in the midterms anyway. In all likelihood,
the 2014 midterms will mirror the 2010 elections. That means
mobilizing core constituencies and picking off enough independents to
tip the balance in competitive races.
Per the 2010 pattern,
there'll be a significant drop off in Hispanic, black, and younger
voter participation. White liberals? Most are confined to safe
Democrat U.S. House districts. Their impact on U.S. Senate contests?
Varies by state, yet white liberal votes matter only in states where
there are closely contested races. Otherwise, white liberals might be a
dispirited lot. ObamaCare is a bust. The economy isn't revving.
Putin's putting the lie to the president's Kumbaya foreign policy.
Via the Daily Caller, which cites a recent Washington Post poll on voter attitudes toward amnesty, this about Hispanics:
Thirty-six percent of Latinos say a vote against amnesty would be welcome or would make no difference.
In 2012, GOP
candidate Mitt Romney won 26 percent of the Latino vote. That's the
same proportion of Latinos who trust GOP legislators to do a better job
on immigration than Democrats, the poll reported.
Appears that in 2014,
Republicans are going to top out at about a quarter of the Hispanic
vote - however how many turn out, that is - as they've done before. Or
Republicans actually may do worse among the GOP's Hispanic voters if
Boehner continues to agitate for immigration reform. Many Hispanic
Republican voters hold similar attitudes toward amnesty as their Anglo
Here's a bigger, more glaring point from the Post poll:
The poll showed legislators'
support for amnesty inflicted a 12-point penalty from registered
voters, 28 points from white people who did not go to college.
14 points from middle-class people who earn between $50,000 and
$100,000, and even a few points from college grads, people who earn over
$100,000 and people who earn less than $50,000[.]
What did we learn from the 2012 presidential elections? Turnout
was noticeably down from 2008. Many of those absent voters were white
working- and middle-class folk who hold generally conservative
worldviews. Their absence cost Mitt Romney the presidency. Shouldn't
the speaker be concerned about how to attract, not turn off,
hard-pressed white blue-collar and middle-class voters - those who view
amnesty as a jobs-buster, primarily, but also as a threat to their
communities, schools, and services? As fundamentally unfair?
prattles on about 2014 being the year for immigration reform. If the
midterm congressional elections go Republicans' way, the House will be
at least as Republican (perhaps marginally more so), and the Senate
will be controlled by the GOP for the first time in eight years. The
House Republican caucus will be more, not less, conservative. The
Senate will have a bit more conservative cast, too.
In fact, Boehner, despite
his predictable bravado about now being better anchored politically
among House Republicans, might find that, post-November 4, he lacks the
votes to win renomination as speaker. Between a more conservative
2015 House Republican caucus and Boehner's problematic speakership
fortunes, he might be correct that his best bet is to reach agreement
with the president (meaning cave in) on amnesty this year, cobble
together his die-hard RINOs with Democrats, and push legislation across
the goal line. Boehner's been passing unpopular major legislation
recently with his "coalition of the willing" (the farm bill, debt, and
spending measures are striking).
A continued push for amnesty
by Boehner - even if he starts to low-key it - serves only to rile and
alienate grassroots conservatives who are indispensible to GOP
election prospects. And then there are the AWOL white conservative
voters who need to be wooed back into polling places.
ObamaCare's unpopularity and
economic uncertainty are powerful drivers in the November elections.
Boehner and his election whizzes may assume that those issues will push
conservatives to the polls regardless of a resolution on immigration
reform. This is a miscalculation of giant proportions. The amnesty
issue cuts deeply with GOP base voters. Boehner may not, but other
Republicans will rue having pimped amnesty and deflating turnout when
Election Day is finished.
Of course, Boehner might
decide to cool his jets until after the elections, wagering that in
tandem with the president and Nancy Pelosi, he could pass immigration
reform during a lame duck session. Would a new Republican-controlled
Congress move to repeal Boehner's and McConnell's handiwork? It would
depend on the mettle of the men and women leading Republicans.
McConnell most certainly wouldn't double back, assuming he still leads
With each passing day, John
Boehner acts more like a dead speaker walking than a leader with a
future. If Boehner finagles his way on immigration, he bequeaths
nothing to the GOP but division, strife, and electoral woe. Far more
critically, on many different levels, the speaker's immigration ploy
could set back an energizing conservative movement that means to right
wrongs caused by a increasingly disastrous five-year-plus liberal
RINOs like John Boehner
prefer big-government management and left-leaning accommodation, not
conservative-driven movements encompassing reforms aimed at greater
liberty, that uphold the law and seek to protect national integrity.
The stakes are too great to let Boehner wear us down.