Why Semi-Automatics, Ammo Clips, and Unregistered Guns "shall not be infringed"!

What is the real purpose of the 2nd amendment of the Constitution?  Is it to protect the ability to hunt?  Or merely self-defense?  Or is it more than that?  Let's hear from the author of the Constitution himself.  Here is just a few excerpts of what Mr. Madison had to say about it. 

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Is this clear enough?  Something is very wrong when the government becomes "afraid to trust the people with arms".  It would be a major revolution from America's foundational grounds of government from a "free country" to a tyrannical state.  Even after the Civil War the armies of the Southern States, particularly Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, were permitted by General Grant to keep their weapons upon their surrender.  So why should American's rights be taken away now because of some insane criminals?  In no other case are criminals allowed to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to "prevent tragedies like this".  If that were the case we would have no rights at all.

Congress has no legal authority to pass any law that infringes on the free and unencumbered right to bear all kinds and types of private arms, including "assault" (i.e. actually semi-automatic) weapons and multiple clips, and that without compulsory registration, tracking, or any other "infringement".  Only those legally tried and convicted and sentenced lose their rights.  No one else.

Listen to Walter Williams on this, who takes President Obama and Congress--including Senator Joe Manchin--and the very bias media to school about this subject, and sets the record straight.

By the way, "Mountaineers are always free" (West Virginia's state motto) only if they resist such anti-second amendment tyranny.

West Virginia Ballot: Chuck Baldwin for President, Constitution Party

There is another choice for President, and we are not talking about Ralph Nader. These two brief videos outline the sharp contrast between Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate on West Virginia's ballot, versus John McCain, and Barack Obama.

West Virginians should consider a much better option for President and vote their conscience, for what they really want, instead of being herded into a compelled choice between a Nanny State (Communism) and Security State (Fascism), by two major party candidates who are both rated badly on gun rights, illegal immigration, the Constitution and our liberties, and especially unjust wars on pretenses of UN resolutions.

Both McCain and Obama are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that are moving America away from the Constitution and national sovereignty toward a new world order of global government from which no nation can opt out. (This is what is really behind the "war on terrorism"). Neither McCain nor Obama talk at all of changing the "war on terrorism", and outside of Iraq they both sound almost identicle in their willingness to continue to invade sovereign countries and continue battles for "regime change", now including even against Russia. Is not one of the primary "changes" desired by many Americans to stop unconstitutional, perpetual, and unjust wars against or within sovereign nations under pretense of a "war on terrorism", which is really a Democratic Jihad for global Democracy? Both McCain and Obama will continue or expand this war policy, which also ruins the economy by driving up oil prices (war fears drive the speculators trading of oil futures), national debt (now at a record high), which in turn leads to economic domestic inflation!

The neoconservatives in particular (originally from the radical left) have hijacked the republican party (which offered nothing more than RINO primary candidates, except Ron Paul) and have destroyed true conservative and Constitutional principles under the plea of "necessity" for a radical global revolution consistent with CFR purposes toward Global Democracy. While Obama is justly being vetted for his communistic collectivist principles McCain's own dangerous corruptions and socialist policies (like taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banksters and foreclosing homeowners) are are of the same bad principles. The truth be said it is the neoconservatives who have provoked the "blow-back" against Bush government and republicans for their unconstitutional radicalism which is driving the "change" support to give Democrats a supra-majority in Congress, and perhaps take the White House for Obama. The fall of republican majorities, therefore, can be laid directly at the feet of the radical neoconservative RINOs that infiltrated hiding behind George W. Bush.

Republicans have also almost entirely lost their plank for "individual liberty" by supporting and pushing the most liberty-killing, anti-constitutional legislation (PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security, REAL ID, domestic spy powers, military for domestic policing, etc.) for a Security State that makes the Nanny State look almost tame. That government expanded under the watch of republicans supposedly against Big Government, increasing the national debt to over $10 Trillion, perhaps was the final straw that discredited and forfeited republicans authority to rule in the eyes of those who supported them. Neither McCain nor Obama offer anything to change this course. If Americans are not truly free from their own government's intrusiveness under the plea of "necessity", what freedom will there be left to defend?

McCain is no true conservative and his policies are scary. Between Obama and McCain you have a choice only of Socialism or Socialism Lite. But there is a third option, and if people do not vote for Principle they will only get corrupt Party representatives and never obtain what is just and right for themselves. Why support candidates whose principles you plainly do not believe in, just because they are the "lesser of two evils"? Continuing to vote for two parties and candidates that never bring the change you want is irrational and political insanity. Both play the Fear card to drive you to chose ONLY between one of them.

Take a look for yourself before you vote and then vote Principles over Party, unless you really do not want the real "change" that many of you say that you are really looking for.

Are you a Globalist or an American? Chuck Baldwin vs McCain and Obama

REAL ID, A Real Threat to Gun Rights

Gun Owners of America has stated the same, but this article shows how. Like the Social Security card, now used as a national identifier for non-related purposes, REAL ID would morf beyond its stated purpose (because the SSN is one of its central components). Homeland 'Security claims absolutely arbitrary power to change its usage requirements without Congressional approval (when in fact REAL ID was only approved by tagging it to a war spending bill, without debate!). Congress therefore has created a monster beyond control.

This is another solid reason that Gov. Manchin and the legislature must pass a bill rejecting it without delay, as have a growing number of other states. The author of this article is in Pennsylvania, which is also under pressure from its citizens to outlaw and nullify REAL ID in their DMV operations.

clipped from rauterkus.blogspot.com Monday, July 21, 2008 REAL ID – A very real threat to gun rights Homeland Security claims far reaching power over your guns The long-term plan for REAL ID is to force its biometric ID functions on federal, state, local and private entities for all transactions. Thus, ID confirmation by a distant bureaucracy becomes permission for essential daily activities including banking, doctor visits, transit, school attendance and purchases -- including guns. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule handed down in January, DHS "will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of 'official purpose' or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future."

Supreme Court Decision on 2nd Amendment Weak on "Shall Not be Infringed"

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gun Owners of America (the only no-compromise gun rights lobby in Washington; see their position on McCain), while applauding the major aspect of the Supreme Court case (in an extremely close 5-4 ruling), also warns that the government is still "infringing", under the despot's plea of "necessity", and Americans should be vigilant to reclaim all of this trampled amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling could be an opportunity to challenge the Constitutionality of the plethora of gun regulations and laws. They state in an email:

In so doing, the Court's decision -- in dissenting Justice Breyers words --"threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

Yes both Tory and Whig parties of our present Parliament, and state and local governments, want to maintain gun regulations and laws, licensing, permits and sales data-bases--i.e. infringement and hurdles by which the government regulates your "rights" in a most hypocritical fashion. The most "conservative" Judge Scalia was careful to keep a lid on the pretended legal government "infringement" laws by adding this in his opinion, as reported in the LA Times:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings," he wrote. The majority opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed or dangerous and unusual weapons, such as machine guns, were not in doubt.

The weakness of the court's very narrow ruling then is evident, regulation still dominates, but the basis for further appeals is now laid.

THE FORGOTTEN CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

In GOA's own legal brief to the Supreme Court, published in part by USA Today below, they included the following, which includes the legal purpose of the 2nd amendment in its historical context--i.e. a last line of defense against tyrannical government (as ironically former Attorney General Ashcroft was quoted as affirming in his confirmation hearing by Sen. Kennedy), including the right to bear all kinds of arms without government permission or restriction:

Opposing view: An unambiguous right

2nd Amendment bars regulation of people’s ability to bear arms.

By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America's Founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense — the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon and powder — actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism."

Entrusting the nation's sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government's military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment's "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals' test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson are attorneys for Gun Owners of America, which filed a brief in the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.

The Reason John McCain Stopped at St. Albans Gun & Archery

or, Why is the West Virginia GOP giving McCain a paint job?

It is revealing how naive and stupid many republican voters are when they fall over themselves as John McCain attended St. Albans Gun & Archery for a cleverly scheduled stop on his way to Kentucky. Have West Virginia republicans, and the leadership, considered his record on gun rights and the 2nd amendment? Actually, the leadership probably has which is probably why he made the stop he did.

McCain is a neoconservative, not a conservative, and his gun rights record proves it. A posting at a Huckabee site includes what appears in this clip below. Yet West Virginia republicans appear to be eager to nominate a man who is as dangerous to gun rights as was Rudy Giuliani, who as Mayor of New York City was involved a million dollar lawsuit against a West Virginia pawn shop that sold a gun that was allegedly used in a crime there --who also spoke to the NRA, until his wife interrupted with a phone call. A candidates history and track record speaks louder than his words. Is the West Virginia GOP simply giving him a cosmetic makeover? How can this be honest to the republican voters?

Obviously with this left-leaning record McCain wanted to make a quick show to the disappointed conservatives in West Virginia, most of which supported other candidates and were as upset about McCain's capture of delegates as Rush Limbaugh. Making a photo-op stop, and really to huddle with GOP leadership, at a Gun Shop was the perfect and deceitful image that was intended to be conveyed. Some of us are not fooled. Maybe if he would have walked out of this (excellent) store with a hand gun (with their excellent selection and pricing of Glocks) instead of fishing equipment it would have been more convincing (but he would have offended the left too much then).

Republicans need to consider, as even Rush Limbaugh waxed on the radio today, that the neoconservatives are not conservative at all (just as Ron Paul stated at the West Virginia GOP convention). John McCain is not a card-carrying member, but as a member of the CFR (like Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, et al, in the company of David Rockefeller) and with his legislative record (e.g McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy), it is not difficult to see just where McCain stands on the Constitution and 2nd amendment rights. Is this really who republicans want to nominate, and elect? It was even Limbaugh's suggestion that the now neoconservative hijacked republican party needs to be taken back and not voting for McCain is the only way to do it. Will you merely vote on a party label, and lose your liberties? The Libertarian Party just announced Bob Barr (former republican Congressman, Georgia) and the Constitution Party has also announced theirs, so a protest vote for the democratic candidate is not even required. (You had a better choice with Ron Paul--who holding to principles refuses to endorse McCain--by far).

At any rate, it is difficult to really see the difference between McCain and the Democrats on gun rights, which this campaign stop and his upcoming session at the NRA is designed to mask, just like Giuliani attempted. It is time for republicans to see who the RINOs are and stop pandering to anyone who has been in the military and has an 'R' by their name.

(Just for the record Gun Owners of America is much more conservative than the compromising NRA on gun rights, which Shelly Moore Capito also waves around as if this means she is conservative too).

clipped from huckabee.wordpress.com Gun Owners of America pulls no punches: Arizona Senator John McCain is running for President (again). He has been courting various conservative leaders in his quest to secure the Republican nomination. McCain wants voters to believe that he is a conservative… but his record would certainly suggest otherwise. Take, for instance, his record on gun rights and political speech affecting Second Amendment activists. Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic are words that come to mind. Then … here is John Lott, writing for NRO, discussing McCain’s attempt to sell Conservatives on his gun rights credentials: McCain has supported central portions of the gun-control agenda. While gun-control groups have tried for years to register the names of gun owners, McCain’s legislation helps accomplish this by effectively requiring the registration of all people who attend a gun show.

22,000 Students Are trying to Make Guns Legal on Campus

After shootings on college campuses in Illinois and Virginia, 12 states are considering measures to let students carry guns. Stephen Feltoon is part of a movement that says college students should have the same gun rights as others....Feltoon says Virginia Tech is home to the SCCC's largest group of conceal and carry advocates. As for the SCCC's total enrollment, Feltoon says it has doubled in the last month, bringing the total to 22,000 members just one year after its founding.

read more | digg story

Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on DC Gun Ban: Bush Justice Dept. vs. the Constitution

It is a fundamental question of 2nd amendment of the Constitution. The Bush Justice Dept is trying to make an exception which cannot stand, unless the 2nd amendment means nothing. The CATO Institute is directly involved in this. Take a look at their sound argument and position of personal right to bear arms.

If a ban like DC's can be harmonized with a personal fundamental right to keep and bear arms, then no gun regulation will be deemed excessive. In effect, the Second Amendment will have been erased from the Constitution. Instead, the Court should hold that Washington, DC's ban on home possession of all functional firearms is both destructive as a matter of public policy and unconstitutional as a matter of law.

-- Robert A Levy, CATO

clipped from www.cato.org Supreme Hears Arguments in Landmark Gun Case The Supreme Court on March 18 heard oral arguments in DC v. Heller, a landmark lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's ban on guns. Cato scholar (and co-counsel to the plaintiffs) Robert A. Levy comments: "At root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is unconstitutional." A decision in the case is expected in June. Robert A. Levy Comments on the DC v. Heller Oral Arguments Cato Institute Amicus Brief for DC v. Heller Tom G. Palmer talks about the DC gun ban on Reporter's Roundtable More on Gun Control

The West Virginia GOP Establishment vs. Ron Paul; Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives

First a quick update on the delegate count as of last night, provided by a local reliable source, then to the main subject:

Romney
64

Thompson
62

Paul
55

Giuliani
46

Now the voters will vote for delegates by county, to pair them down within county limits established by the GOP.

NOTE: Voters must be registered for online voting by this Friday, Nov. 30th, in order to vote for their delegates in January. (We hope the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office will be monitoring closely for fairness, accuracy, to prevent mistakes or fraud in the GOP controlled system).

As most are aware Senator Vic Sprouse unleashed a railing alarm against Ron Paul's increasing delegates in a piece entitled Ron Paul attempting to hijack republican convention, whose delegate count was slightly ahead of the candidate that he is a delegate for, Rudolph Giuliani. The backlash from the blogosphere was incredible, the Senators ChangeWV blog receiving about 300 responses alone, and still counting.

What is significant about this is that Senator Sprouse is on the steering Committee of the state GOP party. Note the State party establishment is openly in opposition then to Ron Paul (see previous article), who has entered as a legitimate candidate, but now must be subject to the gauntlet of internal misrepresentation, persecution, even outright slander, because he is not an "establishment" favorite! "I have nothing against Ron Paul supporters", says Sen. Sprouse, but he clearly does, since they are "hijackers". Yet even the party establishment is split upon whom THEY want to 'hijack' the convention for themselves. One man's "hijack" is another man's "victory". It is the party establishment here that is being challenged, who feel threatened.

THE WEST VIRGINIA GOP FAILED TO COMMUNICATE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS

You see the state GOP, who did no advertising to inform the public about how their complex new Convention system works (which was stacked to favor the already organized establishment--see previous article), finally put out radio advertising (on the state-wide "Talk Line" with Hoppy Kercheval) for delegates--this very last week! That still 1,100 delegates were needed shows the party establishment's failure to inform West Virginians, particularly outside the Capital region--which might just be the way they preferred it, since the GOP chairman McKinney (a Romney supporter) could then select vacant delegate seats himself! Ron Paul's supporters have actually done them a favor by driving attention to the very issue they failed to communicate, including for supporters of Huckabee and Hunter who also suffered by the lack of GOP party communication. So just who was trying to "hijack", through craft instead of open and fair play, the convention?

THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS RON PAUL

Sen. Sprouse's warning here is to circle all the war wagons against Ron Paul who they perceive as a threat (a hijacker), while claiming in this post that he is no threat at all and "irrelevant". This is the essence of propaganda to scare people away from a message they might like. What he is trying to claim is that you will be in a small minority if you do not stay with the establishment's candidates, because they say so (i.e. "no one will vote for him"). Therefore, the very nature of the post betrays the Senator's disbelief in his own message. Ron Paul, they fear, could be a big surprise, and you might like his positions if permitted to hear them for yourself.

Does the party establishment believe THEIR thinking represents the thinking of the average conservative (most of whom questioned the justice of the war based on lies), or are the conservative Pharisees (under the cry of "we are your elected rulers, listen to us") trying to whip up a frenzy of opposition because multitudes are beginning to follow? (And do not be offended at the image, the liberal Sadducees are afraid as well). To wit, not one legitimate evidence was provided above of why we should not believe the "myths" about Ron Paul (go back and look), only empty assertions and allegations, in the same manner that the war was sold.

The establishment resistors of Ron Paul are not able to make persuasive arguments, only repeat "withdrawal is surrender" (yet that was the policy after Iraq I, Cheney decrying overthrowing Saddam or occupation as a quagmire), unjustly link him to "the left", or compare him to LaRouche. But withdrawal is not surrender in an unjust war, against Iraqis, not "terrorists" (as the 'liberal media' also calls them), and LaRouche indeed had a following, but Pat Buchanan might be a better comparison, though not entirely.

As for the Hillary fear card, Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton (just like Zogby said any republican could), easily, because republicans would rally around him. But many of us would never, ever vote for Giuliani (but abstain) to overthrow domestic freedom for a police state patterned after NYC and a CFR agenda, which would be the fault of the party establishment for abandoning the constitution, not us.

One thing that is clear is that the party leaders are afraid of Ron Paul, for he threatens not the people, but the establishment's power, who do not confess their wrongs, but stubbornly and impenitently defend abhorrent policies and unjust wars, and still bow to Bush and Cheney and their neoconservatism. But why should they be afraid, if they are sure they are right, and can defend themselves by debate? And why does Sen. Sprouse want to hijack the Convention for the biggest RINO in republican history--the former democrat Giuliani! Some have the appearance of abandoning the principles of their good legislative record by tying themselves to someone who has done the opposite! It is Sen. Sprouse that has some explaining to do as to why he supports such a candidate like Giuliani, who is a braggart but whose greatest critics are New York firefighters and 9/11 widows, and who takes credit for things not attributable directly to him.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS IN DISARRAY--LITTLE EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL, CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

Republicans are scattered now because they are not united on what they believe, as their smorgasbord of candidates shows. The platform is in shambles (praising individual freedom while embracing collectivist policies and Wilsonian wars for "democracy"), and the mistake was making George W. Bush part of the party platform, who is following a neoconservative, not the constitution or conservative, agenda, entirely built upon unjust war (abortion of a million Iraqi lives, invading their sovereign womb), ironically, while justly decrying abortions of the pre-born. Ron Paul is nothing less than the "blow-back" that should be anticipated when just principles are forsaken to follow a new man or agenda, in this case the neoconservatives behind Bush. The republican establishment has failed to read the principles of the neoconservatives for themselves, thus separating themselves from their constituents, and largely had blind trust in the general "Christian"-feigned image crafted of Bush by the agnostic Karl Rove.

RON PAUL'S CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS AND PRINCIPLES

But their fears are unfounded. Why should the republican party establishment be afraid of a candidate who is the strongest anti-tax candidate the party has ever seen since Reagan, opposes the communist (collectivist) welfare state, the strongest defender of gun rights, who has consistently opposed abortion, who defends the sovereignty of the U.S. by opposing illegal immigration, NAFTA, and North American Union (as warned of by Jerome Corsi on 58Live)who believes in limited government and states rights, simply because he insists the Constitution should be followed in declaring war (oh, the gaul of him), rejects the creeping fascism of warrantless (not all) domestic surveillance on American citizens, opposes (as does Sen. Sprouse) REAL ID (any national ID card), wants to downsize government rather than expanding its welfare and police powers under the guise of a Gestapo-like "Homeland Security" bureaucracy and creeping surveillance state that are making America look more like Stasi Germany? When did it become radical to really defend Americans' freedom, instead of just saying so and doing the opposite, through threats of fear, and then live in a fantasy world of "24" and American Idol?

NEOCONSERVATIVE RINOS ALREADY HIJACKED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

And who has "hijacked" the republican party, but the neoconservatives (former democrats, disciples of Strauss and Leon Trotsky) who infiltrated through and with CFR member and David Rockefeller colleague, the RINO Dick Cheney? WHO HAS DECEIVED AND SWINDLED THE PRINCIPLES FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR A PRE-PLANNED WAR AGENDA BEFORE 9/11 AND WERE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY? The party leadership is more committed to neo-conservatism than conservatism, without knowing the difference, because they follow men on bumper stickers who use the military as a campaign prop! (What do you think "neo" means anyway, but "new"?) As Pat Buchanan's new book highlighted in Drudge last night warned, the neoconservatives must be swept from the republican party if America is to be restored.

Just who are the "top tier candidates" that the State GOP pushes on us? Why are they all (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a David Rockefeller organization that embraces an anti-sovereign UN global agenda based upon socialist principles, unleashed immigration, through economic pragmatism (this is Giuliani in spades)--and is pushing NAFTA and North American Union, amnesty for illegals and REAL ID? IT IS HIGH TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE--EXAMINE CAREFULLY WHO YOU ARE BLINDLY FOLLOWING. "Lay hands on no man quickly" is a biblical principle worthy of political application as well, and the party establishment is blindly pushing the wrong candidates, and fearing the best one.

THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE FREELY UNLESS THE ESTABLISHMENT CAN STOP THEM

But the people will judge, if they will be permitted to hear above the fearful establishment's cries to prevent them from listening--the tactics now being employed in desperation here. Meanwhile those who are paranoid by the neocon propaganda about "jihadists that want to kill us every day", despite the plain lack of evidence (and the evidence of fabricated threats from neocon private contractors), and despite that Americans have more reason to fear each other as "terrorists" on the roads than toiletries in airports, will continue their mantra which requires fear in order to maintain power. Most of us want to return to Constitutional government from the rogue "unitary executive" (President as dictator) before our freedoms are entirely lost. That message is popular and rational, contrary to the present neoconservative fanaticism, to which the republican party should wake up. Ron Paul is their best friend, if they would only see it, but they are like a sick patient that does not want to take its medicine from the Doctor, that would heal the government from its frenzied and feverish policies. So the people might change out the republican leadership to obtain what they want, if they have to. To them that would be hijacking, but to the people, reform--revolution. The purpose of voting is to make peaceful revolutions possible, and that kind of hijacking is legal.

DICK CHENEY AN EX-DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER HID HIS CFR INVOLVEMENT FROM REPUBLICANS

Analysis of West Virginia GOP Convention; Ron Paul Leading Giuliani in Delegates

The Charleston Gazette reported today what every registered republican or even independent should read. Here below, in their words, is the current delegate count with final deadline for delegates to register being this Friday, Nov. 30th.

Fred Thompson has 55 delegates ...Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney follows with 49 delegates wishing to represent him. Ron Paul of Texas has 38. The Texas congressman is edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his 37 committed delegates....Another 148 delegates aren’t backing any candidate, giving each GOP contender a chance to win them over.

This will change of course by the end of this week, while 1,100 delegate seats are still up for grabs, demonstrating the public ignorance and confusion in this novel new process hastily created by the state GOP party. Rush and maneuvering will trump thoughtful deliberation in order to meet the deadline, forcing hasty decisions on delegates, perhaps largely pledging to a particular candidate without objective examination where superficial name recognition and crafted image are the primary influence.

HOW THE NEW PROCESS WORKS, WHAT EVERY VOTER SHOULD KNOW

For the best and simplest explanation of how the radically new TWO PART PROCESS of the West Virginia republican State Convention and Primary works is found here (another must read), from the Ron Paul 2008 campaign which managed to summarize it better than the state GOP website.

Note that 'uncommitted delegates' are the prize and lead the count standings in what will be a "winner take all" convention in February, with online county voting in January (requiring registration also). The regular primary will be held in May but for fewer (one half) of the delegates remaining. The entire process with this radically new state convention, you could say, is "stacked" for the GOP 'establishment' to deal and play and make it difficult to beat their favored candidate(s), since they control the majority of delegates within the convention with even the state chairman being able to appoint for any unfilled seats after the deadline Friday--where over 1,000 delegates are still needed! The few in the GOP establishment could decide for the many. Delegate counts, not straight up voting by registered republicans (i.e. votes are made within each county, thus candidates for each county are key to winning), will determine the convention winner, in this serious game.

HOW THE STATE PARTY RIGGED THE PROCESS TO FAVOR "ESTABLISHMENT" CANDIDATES

The state GOP says this is an open process that rewards not necessarily the candidate with most money, but the most organized. But the GOP establishment, pre-emptively favoring their own candidates with the most money, are already embedded in the formal organization, and generally pre-disposed against truly open and free debate, and seeking to steer the nomination process toward the neo-republican and CFR candidates of the leadership, and a continuation of Bush's neoconservative war policies and new Homeland Security government. This is something Gnewt Gingrich even warned about, that the republicans would lose the White House if their candidate was perceived to be a continuation of Bush policies, which the polls on Bush plainly indicate. Also, some outlying counties were not granted (by the establishment gods) any "at large" delegates and also weighted delegate counts to counties who went for George W. Bush (i.e. a man with a neoconservative policy became part of the party platform, instead of conservative principles) in 2004. Thus the delegate counts by county are conceded to be stacked toward a "continuation" of the policies of George W. Bush while 70 percent of the nation is opposed to the war and Bush's approval ratings at an all time low. Thus while Gen. Chuck Yeager endorsed Duncan Hunter you will not hear much about him, or the former televangelist Huckabee, which Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum virtually called a liberal in conservative clothing (see the WSJ op-ed "Another Man from Hope?").

Ron Paul's grass roots support, however, which has also included strong fund raising, like spontaneous combustion, has broken through and fronts the only conservative yet revolutionary platform of change--a counter-revolution to restore Constitutional rule of law, versus both the neoconservatives and democratic socialists, a genuine "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution that republicans sometimes talk about, but never adhere to themselves. The attraction of this candidate has increased dramatically in direct proportion to those who hear his speeches or read his Congressional track record and policies for themselves, who are alarmed at the anti-constitutional radicalism of the neoconservatives who have hijacked the republican party and are moving America from freedom to fascism while nation building toward a global federation of democracies, largely by threatening wars upon nations never attacking the United States under pretense of "war on terrorism". His anti-tax positions (including abolishing the Income Tax and IRS) have made him a favorite conservative, his 2nd amendment record shows he has pushed to roll back gun regulation, his opposition to abortion consistent as both a doctor and Congressman, who has a record of consistency in principles and personal integrity, who opposes illegal immigration, who was among the first to support Ronald Reagan toward limited government and states rights, and who calls for a return to the "just war" principles of Christianity which limits wars largely to self-defense only, contrary to neoconservative democratic jihads, which have indebted the nation and overthrown its principles.

Among the state GOP party establishment are such as Sen. Vic Sprouse who, shockingly, despite his own conservative legislative record, is a delegate for the former democrat Giuliani and the McKinneys who appear to rally around Romney, the former governor of Ted Kennedy's state. Both of these "establishment" candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that supports both NAFTA and a North American Union (warned against by Dr. Jerome Corsi on 58Live), compromises toward amnesty on immigration, and are "anti-gun" in their 2nd amendment history, as well as historically pro-abortion candidates--all of which they have sought to excuse or suddenly modify, paying lip service, like Chameleons, to the Constitution and more conservative principles. Romney also signed as governor the first mandatory health insurance state law in the country--a dictatorial socialist policy. Fred Thompson has been openly cheer leaded by Daily Mail editorialist and blogger Don Surber. Yet Fred (who admittedly is being attacked by both FOX and neocon pundits like Charles Krauthammer, apparently favoring Giuliani who would follow their radical and revolutionary policies precisely) also has a history of lobbying for pro-abortion entities, is also a member of the CFR that threatens U.S. sovereignty, and already has demonstrated (prior to his official announcement) his willingness to be a pawn toward the pro-Israel lobby and the neoconservative propaganda wars against "Islamo fascists" consistent with the blueprint for a "new middle east", that has cost Americans both blood and $800 billion by invading countries that never attacked the U.S. nor harbored terrorists. Generally Fred seems to take a "maintenance" position, "strolling" toward the Presidency largely on his celebrity image, rather than presenting any concrete change of the present course in both domestic Homeland Security policy (stripping away Americans' freedoms) or foreign entanglements. It can be summed up that the party establishment is predisposed toward the neo-republican CFR candidates who follow a neoconservative, rather than conservative, agenda. The Gazette documented this too:

...Both Thompson and Romney have two state party officers and two county GOP chairmen among their Feb. 5 convention delegates. However, Thompson also has 11 legislators, while Romney has one.

Among the notable Republican Party figures committed to candidates:

- Thompson: Senate Minority Leader Don Caruth, R-Mercer; House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha; former Congressman Mick Staton.

- Romney: National Committeewoman Donna Gosney; state school board Vice President Priscilla Haden; former state Supreme Court Justice John McCuskey; Sue McKinney, Harrison County GOP chairwoman and wife of the state chairman.

- Giuliani: Wood County Commission President Rick Modesitt; Sens. Frank Deem of Wood County and Vic Sprouse of Kanawha.

- McCain: Mason County Commissioner Miles Epling; Fayette County GOP Chairman Gary Lilly; former lawmaker and veteran lobbyist Larry Swann.

- Huckabee: Ashley Stinnett, head of the state’s Federation of Young Republicans.

- Hunter: Marion County GOP Chairman Andrew Sabak.

- Paul’s roster, meanwhile, suggests a more grass-roots appeal; 35 of his 38 delegates are at-large.

West Virginia GOP still needs 1100 delegates
Charleston Gazette - WV, USA
Ron Paul of Texas has 38. The Texas congressman is edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his 37 committed delegates. ...
See all stories on this topic

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the Right to Bear Arms?

The case in particular revolves around a Washington DC (unconstitutional) ordinance that bans handguns, or requires their disassembly. But upholding what a federal judge has ruled, that such an ordinance is unconstitutional, the principle of course (though plain to all) has ramifications on all gun measures that states and the federal government have (unconstitutionally) passed--i.e. mandatory registration, IDs, concealed carry, transportation between states, etc. The current gun laws would have been immediately decried by the founders which included this in the Bill of Rights.

As Thomas Jefferson and others stated, and even as former Attorney General John Ashcroft repeated, "the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the people, as a last resort, to defend against tyrannical government". To which Ted Kennedy replied during his confirmation: "Our government--tyrannical?" Interestingly Giuliani in particular who wants bans on so-called "assault weapons" (but has tried to distance himself from his previous statements and actions), but also including Mitt Romney and John McCain have acted against this, while Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee seem to hold the Kennedy view--i.e. U.S. government, nor the states, could ever be considered tyrannical, particularly after 9/11 when neo-republican rule has acted to introduce a Security State moving toward laws consistent with fascism. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who consistently has and continually demands a return to full 2nd Amendment freedoms, as his record shows.

This case also has everything to do with the very nature and principles behind the new anti-constitutional office of Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT ACT (which latter measures also require gun-tracking and arbitrary labeling of "terrorist suspects"), etc., all of which trample the Bill of Rights and have designs for tyrannical government. American are now being treated and put under surveillance as "terrorist" suspects, and are being told through the media and government that this is "necessary" and "for your own good".

James Madison heralded the following position to be the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tenche Cox, 1789 on the 2nd Amendment

clipped from www.iht.com U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership WASHINGTON: Both sides in a closely watched legal battle over the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law are urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree - a step they may announce as early as Tuesday - the Roberts court is very likely to find itself back on the front lines of the culture wars with an intensity unmatched even by the cases on abortion and race that defined the court's last term. The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to "keep and bear arms." If the answer is yes, as a federal appeals court held in March, the justices must decide what such an interpretation means for a statute that bars all possession of handguns and that requires any other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gun Owners of America Warns NRA, and Republican Congress, Compromising on 2nd Amendment

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

--William Rawle, U.S. Attorney appointed by G. Washington, 1791

This is not new and why Congressman Ron Paul calls GOA "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington". NRA, despite their poster celebrity Charleton Heston's "cold dead hands" rhetoric, has a pattern of ceding gun rights in increasing compromises. Here GOA calls them on it publicly. Shelly Moore Capito and other republicans should pay close attention.

It should never be a crime, as it is now, to be armed (i.e. concealed carry, registration permits, et al). It should only be a crime to make illegal use of arms, or the Second Amendment means nothing. The "security state" is replacing the "freedom state" that America once was, all under the tyrant's politically-correct plea of "necessity". FEAR is the weapon they use to create "must pass" legislation, as usual. Local talk show hosts have bowed to the same pressure. Eventually, West Virginia will become like Giuliani's New York City fascist police state instead of a place where "Mountaineers are always free". Think about it, and read this.

When you're done reading, watch this 4 minute video clip of what a Texas woman told the local government is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, October 4, 2007


It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in
anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about
NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe,
would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun
movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board
member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid
consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our
wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked
with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from
McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun
liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have
now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes
of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe
that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies
which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye
shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to
produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has
vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would
rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which
have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It
would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans'
most private medical records to the federal instant check system
without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without
hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a
roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in
the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or
floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good
legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call
vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own
membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its
heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun
control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for
the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already,
the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this
"victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA
victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA
staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex.
Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first
major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations
dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them
unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT
"maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed
because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited
from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already
such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason
why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT
LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer.
It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has
blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability"
provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid
version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard
to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the
cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits
whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing
funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so
much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than
rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a
battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing
McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this
letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,


Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel

REAL SUPPORT: Ron Paul's Financial Support Surges while Neocon Candidate's Declines

The support for Ron Paul is real and genuine, and very enthusiastic, and growing every time he speaks to an audience. The more who hear his message, the more support comes in. Even ABC News tonight paid attention to the growing and proven support for republican candidate Ron Paul evidenced in campaign contributions and as the candidate WHO HAS RECEIVED THE MOST FINANCIAL DONATIONS FROM THOSE IN MILITARY. ABC even had a statement for George Will saying that Ron Paul proves that you can be conservative and against the war (not pacifist, but anti-unjust and anti-undeclared war).

We have published much about this, and his track record before, including the military giving and analysis by Gun Owners of America, in previous articles. The more people learn about Ron Paul's positions (e.g. against North American Union and REAL ID, strict immigration enforcement, anti-abortion, gun rights, eliminating Income Tax, limited government, eliminating unconstitutional agencies, constitutional versus Executive war powers, etc.) the better he looks, and with a proven track record of HONESTY AND CONSISTENCY, compared to the likes of establishment candidates Giuliani, Romney and Thompson who are liberal RINOs in conservative clothing. Being a doctor he is also opposed to any kind of nationalized health care insurance programs, period, and is in a better position to reason with Americans on this issue.

Could this be why all the republican state committees are shifting their primary process of elections this year, including West Virginia? They are afraid of Congessman Ron Paul who threatens Big Government CFR republicans. Remember, Gnewt Gingrich warned that republicans would lose if they appeared to be continuing the same policies as George W. Bush, and he is absolutely right. Your choice is actually then between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton! Ron Paul is the only candidate that offers any substantive difference, being more conservative than all of them, opposing both the neoconservatives as well as the democratic socialist agenda.

This proves again the nay-sayers, columnists like Don Surber, and pundits are wrong about their conspiracy theory that relatively few support (i.e. "spamming" online and FOX polls cannot be done and is a dishonest claim) this most conservative candidate in the race whose goal is to restore Constitutional and limited government from a long history of anarchy by both party establishments.

Here is a copy of their press release, along with more video coverage below.

Subject: Press Release: Third Quarter Fundraising

October 3, 2007

Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.

Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.

"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."

Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

Paid for by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee

Conservative Pastor: "GIULIANI IS EVERYONE'S WORST NIGHTMARE"; Giuliani's Dance Before the NRA

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."

-- Samuel Adams

Make no mistake, Giuliani is not a conservative, but a neoconservative sycophant and a fascist, who will not uphold the Constitution of the United States, but usurp and overthrow it entirely using Executive "unitary" powers in a New York minute. Very liberal indeed. Amazingly, as far as his personal life, suddenly the most open critics of Bill Clinton have nothing to say or have become open apologists and pragmatists (including 58Live's Michael Agnello) brushing off Giuliani's "serial adultery" as if it has no bearing on principle, ethics, or trustworthiness, or an indicator of possibly also breaking trust or covenant with the American people. DOES CHARACTER MEAN NOTHING--even to "conservatives"? Besides, who wants a sometimes cross-dressing, pro-homosexual, lisping, Yankee Roman Catholic from New York City to represent America? Ethics and character, even religious beliefs(*), are subject to public review for they all reflect upon the mind and character of the man. This will just scratch the surface of Giuliani's character and positions, there are many more alarming connections and secret alliances, and business deals, that deserve public attention as well. (See Devvy Kidd's article for example, Rudy Rasputin Giuliani & Florida Anthrax).

(* Note on religion: Yes, if a man is a Mormon, Jewish or any other sect, his particular form and doctrine of religion, even of Christianity, can be weighed in the balance of private judgment as well, for belief is the mother of actions, and "faiths" are not all the same. Contrary to popular discussion "all faiths" do not make a man "moral", they only paint and white-wash the surface, often as public posturing. Recall that McCain, always Anglican, now claims to be an unbaptized "Baptist", which also raises questions of honesty. There is strong historical precedent from Colonial and early America as to why Roman Catholics in particular were shunned from being in positions of authority, considering that religious freedom of Baptists and Presbyterians in particular, as well as the Deist founders, were persecuted the most by that tyrannical and crusading "faith", which is why early America was almost exclusively Protestant. Catholicism historically has been a key element in Fascism--i.e. Nazi Germany and Italy--as well as other Inquisitional governments. This is NOT to suggest that candidates should be judged by denomination or outward profession alone ("no religious test of office"), which would be foolish and naive, for George W. Bush made plenty of outward profession inconsistent with his moral positions, doctrines, principles and behavior, which some of us observed from the start, but which the "religious right" fell for stupidly hook, line, and sinker, precisely per the crafty Rove's strategy to hoodwink a large voting block. Nothing is more deceitful and morally corrupt than flying "Christian" colors to get elected when it is pure craft and hypocrisy! Nothing is more antithetical to real Christian doctrine that "lying lips" or "feet that make haste to shed innocent blood" (e.g. 655,000 Iraqis), under the guise of "disarming a dictator" in a foreign country that poses no imminent threat. There is a Christian doctrine of "just war", historically believed and taught by Protestant reformers, contrary to Roman Catholicism's Crusades, that limits wars strictly within biblical principles--a "forgotten" and lost doctrine that Ron Paul has mentioned in debates as "America's greatest moral crisis". Unjust war is as murderous as abortion, even more so since it kills the already living, including women and children. Reformed and Calvinistic Christians in particular have increasingly been re-awakened to this lost doctrine and truth and as staunch paleo-conservatives are condemning the lies and propaganda of the neoconservatives' agenda, which planned these wars in advance, implementing them by Machiavellian craft).

As far as his political track record it's amazing how he can mention an oath to the constitution in one breath, but immediately forget it when suggesting policy. Oh yes, and he just "redefined" his position on the 2nd amendment before the National Rifle Association (NRA)! Words and promises are easily spoken during campaigns, but trust must be earned, and history is the best predictor of the future (something Willard Milton Romney is fighting as well).

He may have fooled some at the National Rifle Association, but here is what Gun Owners of America ("the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"--Ron Paul) posted about Giuliani's gun record that no real West Virginia conservative would approve of:

Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?

Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem.¹

If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.

The new Giuliani of state's rights simply does not square with the Mayor of the '90s.

In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn't go far enough....

...This flirtation with federalism [i.e. his claim of "reform" to states rights] is merely a facade, however, for in the recent interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani assured gun owners that he supports only gun control laws that are "reasonable and sensible." He then went on to defend his support of the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban, which are neither.

Fred Thompson has drawn attention to Giuliani's position on this, the conservative Fred Barnes called him "anti-gun" in a forum, and the neoconservative agenda appears to include disarming us (see our article about Gun Owners of America on the candidates), as much as trampling the rest of the Bill of Rights. What would Patrick Henry say to that?

Whatever Rudolph means when he talks about "rule of law" he is not referring to Constitutional rule of law, but one of pure, arbitrary force under the tyrant's plea of "safety and security". Giuliani's track record cannot be hidden, so look at it and remember that Patrick Henry said, "I do not know any other way to predict the future than by the past". We do not need Giuliani to "keep us safe from terrorists", a vague threat that does not hold up to the evidence but has served well a neoconservative tyrannical agenda to overthrow the Constitution, which defines our freedoms. Only a RINO would support Rudolph Giuliani.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

-- Adolph Hitler

If Giuliani gets elected, "keep your powder dry".

------------------------

He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

-- Pastor Chuck Baldwin

GIULIANI IS EVERYONE'S WORST NIGHTMARE

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

September 21, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Former New York City Mayor and Republican Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said this week that he was "liberals' worst nightmare." However, the truth is, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

That Rudy Giuliani is currently trying to cast himself as a conservative is beyond laughable--it is hilarious. This is a man who is unabashedly pro-abortion. He has been seen walking down Fifth Avenue with thousands of homosexuals demanding "gay rights." He himself is a cross-dresser. He has had numerous marriages and only God knows how many sexual affairs. He has been one of the country's most radical proponents of gun control. He made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and is a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens. As a prosecutor, his abuse of power and disregard for law are legendary. [Read]

In addition, Rudy Giuliani is a senior partner in the law firm that "represents CITGO, the oil company controlled by Venezuela's anti-American and terrorist-supporting ruler Hugo Chavez." Giuliani's law firm also acts "as the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra, the Spanish firm that has been granted the right to operate a toll road in the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) project."

(Please read Cliff Kincaid's entire column for more on Giuliani's shady and untoward activities)

Yes, my friends, the umbilical cord connecting the SPP, NAFTA Superhighway and burgeoning North American Union is also connected to Rudy Giuliani.

Yet, Rudy Giuliani wants people to believe that he is "liberals' worst nightmare"? Who is he kidding? Giuliani is a liberal. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is worse than a liberal. He is a liberal that likes to hurt people. I tell you the truth, Rudy Giuliani scares me far more than Hillary Clinton does. Far more. I'll say it right here: if the 2008 Presidential election comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani, Hillary is the "lesser of two evils." That's how bad Giuliani is.

Any Christian who would vote for Rudy Giuliani needs to check out his or her salvation. And before a conservative could vote for Giuliani, he would have to surrender every conviction and principle he ever held.

As for the Republican Party, if it nominates Rudy Giuliani as its Presidential candidate next year, conservatism will be forever vanquished from the Party. George W. Bush has already just about destroyed conservatism within the GOP. A Giuliani nomination would finish the job.

Rudy Giuliani likes to paint himself as being tough on terrorism. The truth is, Rudy Giuliani is a warmonger. A Giuliani Presidency would mean an expansion of military interventionism and preemptive war like you can't imagine. One can call me what one wants, but I am warning the American people, just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller tried to warn the German people about Hitler: Rudy Giuliani is a monster. Anyone who is paying attention knows this is true.

For example, just two days ago, Giuliani urged expanding NATO to include Australia, India, Israel, Japan, and Singapore, along with "a whole group of others that we could put on that list." As originally designed, NATO's purpose was to counterbalance the former Soviet Union's influence in Europe. However, Giuliani wants to expand NATO into a "global body." He also said he wants to "redouble" the war in Afghanistan. He further said the U.S. should consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state." So, could Giuliani be planning a preemptive "large war" with other countries? One can only wonder.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that George W. Bush is obsessed with domestic spying and surveillance, just wait until Giuliani becomes President. You can count on him pressing his anti-Fourth Amendment and anti-Second Amendment agendas to the nth degree through all sorts of executive orders and signing statements.

You can also expect amnesty for illegal aliens to be quickly achieved under a Giuliani administration, along with the completion of the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, this will also be the case if Hillary is elected President, except that if Hillary is leading the charge, many will oppose it; whereas if Giuliani leads the charge, they won't.

This brings up the other thing that makes a Giuliani Presidency so dangerous: the total lack of resistance that rank-and-file conservatives (including Christians) have demonstrated when Republicans control the White House. Absent resistance from his own party and from grassroots conservatives, a Giuliani administration would be left free to perpetrate radical fascist and imperialistic policies completely unfettered.

Everything about Rudy Giuliani smacks of fraud, indecency, greed, and power-lust. Even the wave of 9/11, which Giuliani is riding to the Presidential election, is fraught with duplicity. In fact, New York City firefighters are so fearful their former mayor might succeed in his quest to become President that they came out against his candidacy in a dramatic video. I urge all my readers to watch this moving video presentation. See it here.

Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a nightmare all right. But not just for liberals. He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.