The "Separation of Church and State" Myth

I have decided that one more post regarding government is necessary. We did several posts a week ago on the subject; however, I believe “the separation of church and state” needs to be addressed. In last week’s teachings, we stressed that God honors the concept of government. More than simply believing in it, however, He tells us in Isaiah 33:22 that He IS government: Lawgiver, Judge, and King. Our government, with its three branches - Legislative, Judicial, and Executive - was formed after this pattern. He, as the Author of government, desires to funnel His wisdom, will, and ways into the earth’s realm through a righteous government.

I have often said, “Although God initiated, endorsed, and therefore blesses the concept of government, He despises the ‘political spirit.’” The political spirit is to government what a religious spirit is to relationship with God. Both are perversions of the truth. They are evil. These spirits partnered to crucify Jesus. In America, the political spirit has so defiled our government that deception, a lust for control and power, antichrist ideals/agendas, and greed control much of Washington, D.C. This rebellion and rejection of God eventually opens the door to depravity, such as killing babies up to a month old, which some are now trying to make legal.

One of the most important statements in America’s founding documents is found in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This Amendment was written to keep our nation from favoring any denomination or religious group, and from forming a state Church or religion, as had occurred in England. The king was the overseer of the Church of England and the combined power of church and state in that situation was very oppressive to many people. The First Amendment also ensured individuals could relate to God as they desired without the intrusion of government. It was meant to keep government control out of the church, not keep God or His influence out of government. Our founders wanted God’s influence in our government. The rotunda of the Capitol was actually used for church services every Sunday morning for decades. Presidents, including Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others regularly attended. Jefferson actually did so just two days after penning his now-famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he used the phrase “wall of separation between church and state.”

This statement, “a wall of separation between church and state,” does not exist in the First Amendment - or any other place - in the Constitution. Jefferson stated it in a letter to answer a question posed to him by the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, who were concerned about the government forming a state religion. Here is what Jefferson, one of the authors of the U. S. Constitution, actually said in this response dated October 17, 1801:

“Gentlemen - Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” (1)

David Barton, considered an expert on the intent of our nation’s Founders, said this:

“Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination.” (2)

Over time, the overall effect of the false doctrine regarding “The Separation of Church and State” concluded that neither the church nor God should have any influence in the American government. The true meaning, government not controlling or favoring certain religious groups, has been largely ignored.

Consider the following examples:

• The Little Sisters of the Poor won a Supreme Court case on July 8, 2020, after a 10-year-long battle regarding the Obamacare mandate requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. This is against their religious beliefs. While “churches” were exempt from the mandate, other religious organizations were not. President Trump’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” made all religious organizations exempt, as they should be. It took an Executive Order to finally get this basic First Amendment right granted to Little Sisters of the Poor.
• COVID-19 saw the shutdown of almost all businesses and places of worship. On re-opening, some states tried to keep churches and synagogues locked down while opening bars, casinos, malls, and the like. This made no sense and was obvious discrimination against Christians and Jews. Churches went on the offense. Some chose civil disobedience, opening anyway, while complying with the same laws similar businesses were following. They also sued their states and cities. Pastor Mike McClure and Apostle Che Ahn, both in California, were on the frontlines of that battle. Pastor McClure was fined millions of dollars for keeping his church open. He spearheaded a case representing the Christians of Santa Clara County against the state of California and the County. Che Ahn’s case for Harvest Rock Church was returned by SCOTUS back to the lower court decision, giving them a victory. On 2/6/21, the Supreme Court ruled in McClure’s favor. (Click here to read FRC’s report on the case.)

“Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group, Camp Constitution, by refusing to fly a flag bearing the image of a cross at City Hall as part of a program that let private groups use the flagpole while holding events in the plaza below, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday (voting 9-0)…The dispute arose over Boston's practice of allowing private groups to hold flag-raising events using one of three flagpoles on the plaza in front of City Hall. From 2005 to 2017, Boston approved all 284 applications it received before rebuffing Camp Constitution. The vast majority of flags were those of foreign countries, but also included one commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston…The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of religious rights and has been increasingly receptive to arguments that governments are acting with hostility toward religion.”(3) We give God thanks for this!

We currently have an administration that is anti-Christian. Therefore, we will continue to see boldness in trying to advance the restrictions of religious freedom during their tenure. We must stand strongly and bravely against those attempts. We will pray, we will act, and we will never allow any tyrannical government to restrict our freedom to worship as we believe is right. This is not only a political or philosophical battle; it is a spiritual battle. We will fight and we will win.

“For the Lord your God is going with you! He will fight for you against your enemies, and He will give you victory!” (Deuteronomy 20:4 NLT)

Pray with me:

Lord, we exalt Your holy name and proclaim that YOU are God over America. This reality is something no government entity can ever take away from us. Some people in their foolishness, are trying to convince the world there is no God, or that You are irrelevant. Whether because they believe the Church is unimportant, or see us as a threat, they are actively trying to silence us. Our courts have been attempting to interpret our Constitution in progressive, humanistic ways for over 50 years.

We have sat back in compliance giving the enemy a foothold. Now we must reverse the damage. Help us to watch carefully and teach us to intercede with wisdom and understanding. Also, give us skill and sound ideas as we take action.

We appeal to You, Lord. We ask You to grace us with a holy boldness to push back against the darkness. We will not allow the government to say we can’t have a voice in governmental matters, nor will we comply with laws and judicial decisions that are contrary to Your word and ways. We want Your influence in every aspect of government, so that we and our offspring may live in peace and prosperity. Be glorified in us, Father, and may this nation glorify You. We welcome You into every area of our lives, including government. We pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

Today’s decree:

We decree that God is restoring righteous, God-honoring government in America!

1 ,https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists

2 ,https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

3 ,https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/supreme-court-christians-flag-boston/2022/05/02/id/1068073/?ns_mail_uid=4cc2884a-8368-4c38-b7a3-88795ee7bbb7&ns_mail_job=DM329622_05022022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102sslrji

Copyright © 2022 Dutch Sheets Ministries, All rights reserved.

12/15/1791 - Bill of Rights Day

 Read the Bill of Rights out loud

Pick a spot, go with friends.

Read the Bill of Rights aloud. Hear the words.

Pause. Think about what those exact words mean.

Ratified on 12/15/1791, read it out loud with friends, savor its messages

Members of this association, along with friends around the country, will be finding a few minutes in which to do an annual reading of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The spirit and freedoms it fostered gave rise to the magnificent land of opportunity you see before you today. Do it—this is our country.

Easy details for holding Bill of Rights commemorations near you are posted for your convenience. https://www.gunlaws.com/BOR-CommitteeReport1.htm There is so little to it, and so much to gain! So-called "news" media rarely give this adequate attention, responding to requests for comment with, "No comment." Here at JPFO we are of the opinion mass media should loudly encourage recognition of the day. Neither communism nor Islam recognize or celebrate this. Our motto is "All the Bill of Rights for all citizens."

Yes, citizens. Become a citizen, get to fully enjoy the rights this nation is built upon. Those liberties freed the people to do what they want, and advance through the sweat of the brow and achievement. The Bill of Rights was originally a single Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with 12 separate articles, easy to see on facsimiles of the original. Articles 3 through 12 were approved, making Article 3 what later editors renamed Amendment One, now, The First Amendment, with five distinct elements: religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.

#####

“Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of 'gun control' as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called 'gun control' does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.”

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005

JPFO: Thoughts On The Bill of Rights

Thoughts on The Bill of Rights

By Michael Gay. April 27th, 2018

There is a move afoot wanting to repeal the second amendment to the constitution. In the excellent little book “Mitzvah” Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith observed that it is an elementary exercise in logic to see that eliminating the Bill of Rights, or any portion thereof de-ratifies the Constitution, which is the basis of the government in which the “repeal” of the second amendment would be taking place. This would be a logical impossibility and illegal.

However, we must question if this would bother anyone in government considering what has happened to other portions of the Bill of Rights in the past several years, and indeed over the past few decades.

Just to be sure that this is understood, the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The rights contained therein are the unalienable rights illuminated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by there Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights so illuminated are then enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This document does not “grant” rights, it declares them so there is to be no mistake on the part of the men and women in government, and places restrictions on the government to run roughshod over the inherent rights of Americans. As the Bill of Rights says in its preamble, “...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. . .”

However, it must also be understood that the parchments upon which our government has been established, with its powers and limitations spelled out, are not sufficient to guarantee that the government will abide by those limitations.

“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false” hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” 
Judge Learned Hand

“It is sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your word of death for all Comanche to see. And so there is iron in your word of life. No signed paper can hold the iron, it must come from men. The word of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life. . . or death. It shall be life.” 
Chief Ten Bears from the film, “The Outlaw Josie Wales”

The Bill of Rights is much like a restraining order placed on government by the founding fathers. So, like a restraining order, it is a fine thing and effective in discouraging an abusive man from beating his wife–but only as long as the man respects the paper issued by the court. Once the 225 lb man gets drunk and becomes inflated with his own sense of omnipotence and decides to go to her place the 110 lb woman can hold that paper up and he will slap it out of the way and commence to beat her senseless. That paper restrains him only to the extent that he allows it to do so.

It is the same with the restraining orders placed on our government. Once they become convinced that nobody will actually stop them, the parchments upon which we rely mean very little; as to them, the end goal of total control justifies any means.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” 
Patrick Henry

Having the wherewithal to resist tyranny is not sufficient without having the spirit to do so. The abused woman is lost if all she can do is hold up a piece of paper. As her father might have told her, she needs to get away from him, and get herself something that the abusive man will respect; something like a gun and a guard dog to provide backup and the super–sensitive nose and ears for an early warning of danger. In this way the abusive man will either cease and get out, or face some very serious consequences.

If the abused person cannot bring themselves to take these steps. If there is no point at which she is ready to actually shoot. . . she is lost. If the abusive man is not convinced of her readiness to shoot he may well advance upon her, take the gun from her hand, use it to shoot her dog and commence to beat her yet again. To be effective she must have both–the firearm and the resolve to use it.

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day, Dec 15th

 

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day, Dec 15th Aaron Zelman, JPFO's late founder, made it one of his many missions to celebrate Bill of Rights Day, ratified December 15, 1791.    The Bill of Rights, seemingly more and more under attack, defines America. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Constitution of the United States would never have become the law of the land without the Bill of Rights. Several states refused to join the Union unless there was a Bill of Rights to limit the federal power and protect individual rights. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Bill of Rights guarantees fundamental civil and human rights: the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion; protections against unreasonable searches and coerced confessions; rights to counsel and a jury trial. For these rights and freedoms people have struggled for centuries. The Bill of Rights remains a beacon to freedom-loving people worldwide. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Bill of Rights does more: it defines the limits of government power. More directly than any other single document of law, the Bill of Rights stands between tyranny and liberty. Refugees flee to the United States, not for its "three separate branches of government," not for its arrangement of senators and representatives, but for its liberty. The foundation of that liberty is the Bill of Rights. We should celebrate and nurture it.   We have special days for the birthdays of great leaders, to remember special events, and to honor our military services. But all of these remarkable people and events aimed to advance the cause of liberty -- the cause of the Bill of Rights.   Just one day per year, let us fly the flag, put up a poster, and most important of all: read the Bill of Rights. Also read it, to our children, in libraries, in schools, in homes, as well as reminding our representatives in congress of their oath of office.   Aaron Zelman, in collaboration with Claire Wolfe and Richard Stevens, wrote nine years ago "You'll be Freer and Richer in the Bill of Rights Culture" -- a two part treatise on the subject. There is much food for thought contained within which is valuable reading.   Read also some sage words by L. Neil Smith "Being Necessary ...", which does not mince words when it comes to defining the true meaning of our Bill of Rights. JPFO has a useful index page of Bill of Rights material. "You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side." © 2016 JPFO All rights reserved. jpfo@jpfo.org 1-800-869-1884 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership America's most aggressive civil rights organization We make the NRA look like moderates Join JPFO Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser on JPFO.

12500 NE 10th Pl

Bellevue Washington 98005

USA 

Quote of the Day: Zero Tolerance

“The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.” 

~ Thomas Sowell

It Can't Contradict Itself

I just swung by the local post office, trying to find a correctly-sized shipping box, and I noticed once again the signs prohibiting firearms and other deadly weapons on USPS property.

This, next to a dozen or so good ol' Alaskan boys with an assortment of Leatherman pouches and Buck knives. No weapons? Yeah, right. Try to find an Alaskan without a knife; I'll wait.


But as an intellectual exercise, I wonder:

a) since the General Government* is a creation of the States and the Constitution they adopted, it follows that the G.G. cannot exceed its own Constitutionally-established authority; and

b) said Constitution states that the people have a pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits Congress from making any law which infringes upon that right; and

c) any entity created by a contract has only the powers which the signers codified in writing therein; so therefore,

The USPS prohibition against firearms is prima facie unconstitutional. The federal judge who likewise ruled, a few months back, that the G.G. has the right to declare some of its land off-limits to firearms was wrong, too. Or, to put it another way, a federal entity must not restrict a federally-protected right on federal property - it's a contradiction to do so; it's the one place where those rights should be the most zealously guarded.

I do understand the concept of creating a weapons-free zone around a VIP, such as the President; it makes sense to establish a safe perimeter. But that's not tied to the land ... it moves with the person.

That being said, it's the law of the land whether Constitutional or no. I won't violate it, because incurring the wrath of the G.G. is definitely not a good idea, when it can be avoided.

But it is another aggravation; there seem to be an awful lot of them these days.



*Thomas Jefferson's preferred title for it; who am I to second-guess him?

Meh

There's very little newsworthy goings-on at this end of North America, aside from the gun control vote coming up in the Senate.

Y'all know what to say to your Congressional folk ("Vote against Manchin-Toomey-Schumer!).

Meanwhile, it's to be another sunny, 40-degree day here, which is as good as it gets this time of year. The snow is melting, the roads are mostly dry, and AccuHunch is calling for some rain showers (rain, not snow!) on Sunday.

There's plenty to read on the sidebar, so please visit my friends there & help yourself to the free ice cream. Have a wonderful day, and thanks for stopping by.

The Bill of Rights is Not Negotiable

There's an excellent essay on the Bill of Rights at alaskaslist.com. Here's an excerpt:

The Bill of Rights is Not Negotiable

by Mike Adams

There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to recognize or discard on any given day.

This delusion is predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights.

But no such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states. There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress, nor in the White House.

Go here to read the whole thing.

CATO Institute: "FBI Free to Ambush our Bill of Rights"

Excerpt:

When I was a kid, beginning to learn what it is to be an American, I found a hero in George Mason, a leading Virginia delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Mason refused to sign on to the Constitution that was passed by the convention. Why?

“There is no Declaration of Rights,” he explained.

There was no section in the Constitution protecting citizens’ individual rights against an imperious government in this new America — similar to the charges Thomas Jefferson made against King George III’s government in our Declaration of Independence in 1776.

George Mason’s contagious objections became a major reason that the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were finally listed and ratified by enough states to be added to the Constitution in 1791.

And we still proudly have them! Or do we? As George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama have eroded our guarantees of a self-governing republic, how many Americans are aware they are losing some of the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? How many Americans even know who George Mason was?

Go read the whole thing.

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day by Waving Goodbye to Your Rights

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day by Waving Goodbye to Your Rights (by Left Coast Rebel)

Excerpt:

Do you think the title to this piece is over the top? I'm sure some of you do. But I can assure you that I'm serious. And as you celebrate Bill of Rights Day today (12-15) you might want to give some thought to the irony of what is going to happen to one of those rights as things unfold on the glorious national holiday that no one has ever heard of.

... In case you were distracted by events in the Russian elections recently, I'll tell you what you missed here at home that might remind one of what happens routinely in Russia. The right of Habeas Corpus was just suspended.

As part of the defense authorisation bill that funds the US military, the President himself can decide to detain anyone, American citizens included, indefinitely - perhaps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - if he suspects that they are a terrorist. And he would use the military itself to do so. On suspicion alone, no formal arrest, no rights given, no attorney, no arraignment, no trial, no judge, no jury.

Go. RTWT. Discuss.

Quote for the Weekend

"We don't need no stinkin' permission to exercise our rights. We need to exercise our rights whether they, the government, want us to or not!"

~ Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center

The Bill of Rights at 220

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 11th state to ratify the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

On the 200th anniversary of that date, the Missouri Bar Advisory Board on Citizenship Education published "The Bill of Rights - An Introduction." My dad had a photocopy of that document among his things, and it was one of the very few items I picked from among them, while in Missouri last month for his funeral.

I quote from the publication:

"The Impact of the Bill of Rights

"The first eight amendments limit the power of government by specifying a list of rights and liberties [belonging to the people - Ed.]. The Ninth Amendment suggests that rights other than those listed may also exist. The Tenth Amendment underlines the fact that the national government exercises only powers granted to it under the Constitution. (1)

"Today, because of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, most provisions of the Bill of Rights also limit state and local governments. The Bill of Rights cannot lawfully be violated by the government unless the Constitution of the United States is amended. (2) Ordinary laws, therefore, can not amend the Bill of Rights. ..

~ snip ~

"Rights and Duties

The existence of a right implies the existence of a duty. For example, if you have a "right" to free speech, then governments have a "duty" to honor that right. Interpretation of the Bill of Rights involves defining the rights and corresponding duties. ..."

I'm sure that, by now, you're all thinking of multiple instances recently where police have confiscated cameras, cell phones, etc. Those officers (and sometimes departments) have claimed that such actions as filming an arrest somehow hinders or interferes with said arrest.

Those departments involved are now busily paying fines levied by the courts for their malfeasance and abrogation of citizens' rights.

Not only is a freedom of speech issue, but in the case of bloggers, a freedom of the press issue. The courts have long since ruled that "press" is constituted as any means of publishing information.

Yes, I know I'm quite likely preaching to the choir, but sometimes it's helpful to go over the basics.

To continue:

"Fear of National Governmental Power

"Thomas Jefferson who represented the United States in France, and hence did not attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was a leading critic of the new Constitution. He and others faulted the original Constitution for its failure to identify fundamental rights which the national government should not abridge.

"Eight of the 13 states ratified the Constitution with an understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added. After all, we fought the American Revolution because we suffered under an abusive government. We should be certain, they said, that the new Constitution did not create another instrument of tyranny."

"1. The national government has only the powers granted to it under the Constitution. State governments, however, have all power unless forbidden by either the state constitution, or by the national constitution.

"2. Several amendments to the Constitution were enacted to reverse constitutional interpretations made by the courts, including the Eleventh Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment."

Quote of the Day

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

~ Albert Gallatin (1789)

A Re-Write of the Bill of Rights

Today is the 219th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. With that in mind, here's a re-write of those Amendments, in modern English. Perhaps our representatives (ahem!) should read it.

Excerpt:

Article I…………………… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Article II…………………… Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.


~snip~


Article IV…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


~snip~

Article VIII…………………… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.


Article IX…………………… The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Article X…………………… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


found at The Tenth Amendment Center

Quote of the Day: "a Well Disciplin'd Militia"

For the government of citizens, as it is of two kinds, an equal or an inequal commonwealth, the reasons why it is the hardest to be conquer’d, are also of two kinds; as first, the reasons why a government of citizens, where the commonwealth is equal, is hardest to be conquer’d, are, that the invader of such a society must not only trust to his own strength, inasmuch as the commonwealth being equal, he must needs find them united, but in regard that such citizens, being all soldiers or train’d up to their arms, which they use not for the defence of slavery, but of liberty (a condition not in this world to be better’d) they have more specially upon this occasion the highest soul of courage, and (if their territory be of any extent) the vastest body of a well disciplin’d militia that is possible in nature: wherfore an example of such a one overcom by the arms of a monarch, is not to be found in the world.

~ The Oceana and Other Works, James Harrington, 1771

This excerpt shows, as much as anything, some reasoning behind the words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Harrington's work was known to our Founding Fathers, and no doubt his comments about the use and utility of arms, both for and against a monarchy, played a key role in shaping the thoughts of those who drafted the Bill of Rights.

Fog & Scrambled Eggs (Updated)

It started out clear, with the full moon showing low above the western horizon. It's an unseasonably warm 19 degrees with a light frost. An hour later, it's already light as sunrise approaches, and there's a heavy fog. A little breakfast, and then off to the range. Since visibility is down to less than 100 feet, it's going to be pistol time - I wouldn't be able to see the rifle target, 100 yards away.

Update: the Wet Bunny range is socked in; it's on the waterfront, and the fog is as thick as peanut butter (thank you, Yukon Cornelius). No shooty fun today, dang it.

* * * * *
A word about the Supreme Court decision on corporate donations to political campaigns: despite the shrill screeching of the lefties & progressives, what actually happened is that the Court rightfully struck down an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Scream all you want; it was the right thing to do.

And President Unicorn just publicly urged the Congress to pass another law which the Court already ruled is unconstitutional. Sorry, folks, but this guy is reputedly a "Constitutional scholar".
Somehow, I don't think that means what they think it means.

In the meantime, chew on this:

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us all. – Justice William O. Douglas

I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – Justice John Marshall Harlan

Free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates the speech that we hate. – Henry J. Hyde, U.S. Congressman, Speech, 5/3/91