Latest Entries »
Are you living in a Constitution Free Zone?
By Bobby Eberle April 17, 2014 7:13 am
Print Tell a Friend Text Size: A A A
cfzIt’s sad to see what’s been happening with our government in recent years. Slowly, but surely, our rights and freedoms are being taken away. We thought our Constitution would protect us. After all, it was written to shield Americans from the abuses of government. But believe it or not, there are places in this country where the Constitution doesn’t apply.
As reported by Fox News, a federal judge has put forward a decision upholding the federal government’s practice of “‘suspicion-less’ searches of laptops, cameras and cell phones at the border.” There are two things wrong with this statement. First, that a federal judge would support these types of searches. And second, that this is an ongoing practice of our federal government!
“I think Americans are justifiably becoming increasingly surprised and even outraged by the extent to which the national security state seems to be monitoring and collecting information about us all,” said ACLU Attorney Catherine Crump. “We think that having a purely suspicion-less policy is wrong, because it leaves border agents with no standards at all to follow. That opens the door that people will be [targeted] for inappropriate reasons.”
The ACLU sued, claiming the broad expansion of search powers under President Obama posed a danger to the lives of ordinary Americans — especially since the administration claims it has the right to inspect items not just at ports of entry, but checkpoints hundreds of miles away. The ACLU calls these “Constitution-free zones.”
As Anthony Gucciardi points out, this zone around the United States “expands 100 miles and includes 197 million people.” We aren’t talking about Russia or China or Iran. We are talking about the United States of America under Barack Obama.
Gucciardi asks a basic question in his report: why isn’t the media reporting this? These zones, where anything of yours can be searched for any reason without having to have “cause,” is an ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. This is just outrageous! And the media don’t find this newsworthy? Why not? Why would they simply turn a blind eye to what’s happening to our freedoms?
Here’s how the 4th Amendment to the Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, 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.
Donald Quinn, writing for Digital Journal, takes issue with what the federal government is doing:
For all those people who have been fighting tooth and nail against new gun control laws, in order to uphold the 2nd Amendment, the bad news is apparently it is already a lost cause. If your home, vehicle, or person has a gun within 100 miles of an international border, to include all land and sea borders, ports, and airports, then the law enforcement agent of any stripe can seize that gun on the simple premise that they believe you could be about to commit a crime. Without being called an alarmist, we need to understand that with the stripping of the 4th Amendment under this “constitution free zone” we have already lost the ability to defend ourselves against any other violations of the Bill of Rights. Think I am being a panic monger?
In the story reported in The Tampa Tribune, John Filippidis and his family were pulled over, searched, and detained on the side of the road for up to 90 minutes in Maryland recently. The officer, from the Transportation Authority Police, pulled over the family (kids and all) for a supposed traffic violation despite the fact that they were not speeding. What followed was an ordeal where a police officer tried to get Filippidis to disclose the location of his handgun. How did the officer know that the man had a weapon? Filippidis had a concealed weapons permit for the State of Florida, however, had chosen not to carry his gun on a family road trip this December. Despite being told this repeatedly, the officer searched Filippidis and interrogated him in front of his wife and kids. To add insult to injury, they searched the entire car — under the guise of reasonable suspicion. No due process and certainly no probable cause considering that not even a speeding ticket was awarded, and the department has since issued an apology. My question is, what would the officer have done had Filippidis been carrying his weapon under his 2nd Amendment rights, and what good did the 4th Amendment do a family that had done nothing to attract suspicion other than being legal registered gun owners in a different state?
This is really going on in America. I’m not usually on the side of the ACLU, but if we lose our protections under “probable cause,” then what’s next? The federal government is supposed to serve the people… not the other way around. If we keep forfeiting our freedoms all in the name of “security,” pretty soon we’ll have neither.
The Great Deception Of The Church
By Charles R. Fuqua, J.D.
There is a great deception that is very widespread in the Church. It is that the Pharisees loved the law of God and were zealous for its enforcement. The exact opposite was true. The Pharisees hated the law of God and invented an entire system of loopholes so that they could give the appearance of godliness but violate the spirit and intent of the law. What difference does it make that most of the Church has a factual misunderstanding of this? A misunderstanding of facts leads to false doctrine. Since Christians know the condemnations Jesus gave against the Pharisees, they do not want to be guilty of being like the Pharisees. They want to avoid any trace of legalism. The problem is that many in the Church, wanting to avoid the legalism of the Pharisees are guilty of the very sin of the Pharisees (despising the law of God) because they misunderstand what the Pharisees taught.
Matthew 15:1-9 is sometimes used to show that Jesus condoned the breaking of God’s Law. Verses 1-3 begin:
Then Jesus was approached by a group of Pharisees and lawyers from Jerusalem, with a question: ‘Why do your disciples break the ancient tradition? They do not wash their hands before meals.’ He answered them: ‘And what of you? Why do you break God’s commandment in the interest of your tradition?’
The Pharisees are not accusing Jesus’ disciples of breaking God’s law, but rather of breaking the ancient tradition; sometimes referred to as, “the tradition of the elders”. This is not God’s law but, Pharisaic tradition. The Pharisees developed a system of laws and rules that were extremely complicated. Unless a person was a trained doctor of the law, the laws were almost impossible to understand. Therefore, those who were learned in the law were often able to trap people in the maze of the law, while they violated the spirit of law themselves by knowing the loop-holes. Jesus answered them beginning in verse 3:
Why do you break God’s commandment in the interest of your tradition? For God said, ‘honor your father and mother’, and ‘the man who curses his father or mother must suffer death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, anything of mine which might have been used for your benefit is set apart for God, then he must not honor his father or his mother.’
God’s law is clear, a person should give respect and honor to his parents. This includes taking care of parents in their old age. The Pharisees would say that their wealth was dedicated to God, then they would live in luxury and splendor and ignore the needs of their aged parents. In Matthew 15:6 Jesus continues:
You have made God’s law null and void out of respect for your tradition. What hypocrisy! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘This people pays me lip-service, but their heart is far from me; their worship of me is vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Jesus’ disciples were not disobeying the laws of God, they were disobeying the traditions of the Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee and many times he criticizes the laws or traditions of the Pharisees. Some people do not understand this and believe that Paul is criticizing God’s law.
The true measure of a person’s love for Jesus is that persons love for God’s Law. John 14:15 says, “If you love me (Jesus) you will obey my commands.” What are Jesus’ commands? To understand this we must understand who Jesus is. Jesus is God in the flesh, therefore, the commands of God are Jesus’ commands. How do we know if a person loves Jesus? “If you love me you will obey my commands”. Jesus reemphasized this point in John 14:21: “‘The man who receives my commands and obeys them – he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my father; and I will love him and disclose myself to him.’”
What did Paul and his fellow Pharisees believe? When Israel went into the Babylonian captivity, temple worship was abandoned and the Israelites began worshiping in synagogues. The learned rabbis studied the Law of God. They were in effect lawyers and clergymen rolled into one. While in the Babylonian captivity, influenced by Babylonian culture, they began writing commentaries on God’s Law. These commentaries are referred to as the traditions of the elders, or more properly the Babylonian Talmud. These Pharisaic rabbis taught that when the dead were resurrected they could attain eternal life if they had kept the law. However, the Pharisees found that law keeping was very difficult; moreover it got in the way of many pleasurable and profitable practices. So, in their commentaries (the Talmud) they established loop holes in the law. These loopholes were a means by which a person could appear to be keeping the letter of the law while in fact, being in total violation of the spirit of the law.
A very interesting passage is found in Luke 11:52, “‘Alas for you lawyers! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not go in yourselves, and those who were on their way in, you stopped.’”[i] Compare this to Matthew 23:13, “‘Alas, alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces; you do not enter yourselves, and when others are entering, you stop them.’”
These Pharisaic lawyers took away the key of knowledge that opens the door to the kingdom of heaven by teaching that salvation comes through keeping their traditions, rather than through faith. Some teachers today teach that in Old Testament times people received salvation by keeping the law, but since the death of Christ salvation comes through faith. This cannot be true. If, in Old Testament times, salvation came through keeping the law, then no one was saved before the time of Christ, because no one except Christ himself has ever been able to keep the law. To understand all of Paul’s writings, these principles must be understood. Since Paul so adamantly teaches that salvation does not come by keeping the law, some biblical scholars today have erred in teaching that the Old Testament taught that salvation came by law keeping. In fact, the Old Testament clearly teaches that salvation comes through faith. It was Paul’s own Pharisaic background that he was teaching against.
The religious guides of Christ’s day were the Pharisees. They wanted to make sure that the common people were truthful in their dealings with them, but the Pharisees had developed loopholes in the law of truth-telling that benefited them. When they took an oath they would swear by something that was sacred, but since they were the doctors of the law, they would invent loopholes in their oaths so that they could get out of their contracts. They developed an intricate system of swearing whereby some oaths were binding and others were not. The common people couldn’t figure out their system and were often tripped up in it. The Pharisees were absolute masters at inventing loopholes and traps in the law, but Jesus pointed out how their devices perverted the intent of the law. Matt 23:16-23:
16. Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.” 17. Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 18. And, `Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.” 19. Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20. Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21. He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. 22. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it. 23. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
This hatred for legalism by many in the Church, should lead them to love the Law for God and hate the false teachings of the Pharisees, but because many in the Church have a factual misunderstanding of the teachings of the Pharisees it leads them to hate the law of God. Good evidence that this is the case is, that in spite of the fact that many psalms praise God’s law, you find very few contemporary songs extolling the virtues of God’s law.
Charles Fuqua is the author of God’s Law – The Only Political Solution. He is available to speak at churches and any other group setting. GodsLawForAmerica.com, CharlesRFuqua@gmail.com, 870-612-3570.
Charles R. Fuqua | 870-612-3570
Beyond Clive Bundy: The Real Range War and Why We’re Losing
Posted by MOTUS on April 13, 2014 at 12:19pm
Hopefully your Saturday night and Palm Sunday morning activities have given you enough perspective to join me for a brief recap of the attempted federal land grab at the Bundy Ranch and the showdown at the NV Corral. You’ve undoubtedly heard the story by now of how the Bureau of Land Management attempted to evict Clive Bundy and his cows from the family’s centennial ranch (two second argument: tortoise trumps cows; because we said so). And now they’ve backed down, with an agreement that results in the slaughter of Bundy’s cows, for which he will receive half the proceeds. That’s, at least theoretically, a win for the good guys.
Now, here’s the rest of the story: (h/t Infowars and Dana Loesch)
The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations, or turtles. Or something. (more additional info here) “Back in 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.”
Some people claim that what Harry really wants are the water rights, to divert to all his friends in Vegas, baby!
The stated reason for the land grab by the BLM was to protect a the desert tortoise – that is now so populous that the government i…
Although widely reported that Clive Bundy has not paid fees for use of his land, that isn’t quite accurate. He just hasn’t paid what the BLM thinks he should.
Last week hundreds of supporters (deemed the “militia” by the MSM, “armed anarchists” by others) showed up on the disputed land. Fevers were running high and anything might have happened. That is, prior to news of Harry Reid’s possible connections began to leak. Then, suddenly the Sherriff was able to work out a resolution with Clive, allowing the BLM armored division to back off.
web1_tresspasscattle_040514JL_01_14BLM snipers on BLM helicopter
I’m guessing the hostage negotiations were amicably settled for one of several reasons:
Barry didn’t want to be the second black President with blood on his hands.
Ricky didn’t want to be the first black Attorney General with blood on his hands.
Harry told them to back down, as the subsequent investigation would result in a midterm bloodbath.
The last time a story got a little too close to examining just why people call him “Dirty” Harry, the Feds also withdrew the complaint. Makes you wonder how many pictures, of whom, he has in private dossier.
harry reid wtf“Go ahead punk, make my day.”
So I think you’re pretty much up to speed now. When the story started to zero in on Democrat-nerve central, it had to be killed. Same as the cattle that the Feds have already rounded up from the Bundy ranch. Don’t worry though, they’re going to split the proceeds of the slaughter with the Bundy family, which is mighty generous of them, given all the trouble they’ve gone through – the Feds, I mean.
Anyway, this is certainly an interesting little story, butt there’s a much bigger, more interesting story that has been pretty much ignored in MSM.
A two-decades-old battle between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has resulted in officials armed with machine guns surrounding the ranch and forcibly removing the owner’s cattle, according to the rancher’s family.
It’s one of those what-in-the-world is going on here storie: how is it that the Bureau of Land Management came to have armored vehicles and agents armed with military style arms in order to deal with trespassers on their national turtle refuge? If they want to evict someone occupying their land they should have to call the Sherriff – whose job is to enforce the law – just like everybody else. If the Sherriff needs backup, they call in the FBI – whose job is also to uphold the law. As far as I know, the Bureau of Land Management’s job is to, well, “manage the land” not scorch it.
Screenshot Studio capture #1885
I don’t see anything in BLM’s mission statement about protecting the Constitution (obviously), upholding the law, or forcing evictions. And yet, here they are, with armed agents, armored vehicles and “low-flying” helicopters to round up a rancher’s cattle. What’s wrong with this picture?
first_amendment_areaIt’s a constitutional right, not an “area”
Now every administrative agency (emphasis on “administrative”) in the U.S. government gets to have it’s own SWAT team. Seriously, “Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo” would have been a really big story at any other time in the history of the Republic, now it’s barely noted in the MSM.
It’s no wonder we’re going broke. Armies are very expensive. Maybe we should just merge them all into one civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military.
cropped civilian military force-WM copy
So the moral of the story is this: Don’t count your liberties before they’re secured. Because in a range war between the tortoise and the Harry, freedom is only one generation away from extinction.
Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror
Harvard journal says “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” is ancient, not a modern forgery
By Michelle Boorstein, Published: April 10 E-mail the writer
A new report claiming to support the authenticity of a papyrus fragment that quotes Jesus as saying the surprising words “my wife” set off new debate Thursday over what can be definitively known about Jesus and how early Christians saw matters of gender and sex.
Two years ago, Harvard Divinity School historian Karen King announced the discovery of the fragment. In the meantime, experts on subjects ranging from ancient script to carbon ink to early Christianity have discussed whether it could be a modern forgery and, if not, what significance its words might have.
On Thursday, the Harvard Theological Review’s April edition included several articles on the document’s composition, saying it probably dated from between the sixth and ninth centuries and might be even older.
King said authenticating what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” doesn’t prove that Jesus was married but sheds light on early Christians’ discussions about whether “the ideal mode of Christian” life was a celibate one, King wrote in the Review.
It’s not known who wrote the fragment, which is in Coptic, but in it Jesus speaks of his mother, his wife and a female disciple called “Mary,” King wrote. “The main point of the [fragment] is simply to affirm that women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus’s disciples,” King wrote.
Experts on ancient and contemporary Christianity saw the conversational value in the fragment, even if they disagreed on its historical import.
Hal Taussig — a New Testament professor who worked with King on the fragment and has written about other ancient Christian writings found in recent decades — said the words on the fragment are “breathtaking” and support the idea that Mary Magdalene “was a major leader in the early Jesus movement.”
Taussig said he believes the document is ancient and ostensibly as important as documents that make up the accepted New Testament.
“Everything we have is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. We have no original documents,” he said Thursday. “What you have are traditions of writing.”
Taussig said that even considering a non-celibate Jesus would be a “huge shift” for some. “This is where people will take the most offense,” he said. “But for many married people, this might make Jesus feel closer.”
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who last month came out with a travelogue based on Jesus’s life, said there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was single.
“It’s incredible that the four Gospel writers wouldn’t have mentioned Jesus’s wife if he had one. They mentioned everyone else in his family,” Martin said. “There are Gospels that talk about Jesus turning stones into birds. … There is a natural desire to know as much as we can about Jesus.’’
Martin added: “But funnily enough, people who are quick to accept the veracity of this” appear to be liberal Christians who question the veracity of other biblical accounts, including that of the Resurrection, Martin said.
The Harvard Review included an article by a Brown University Egyptologist, Leo Depuydt, who said the document looked fraudulent and “hilarious.” He said he had never seen ancient Coptic manuscripts with boldface letters before.
“The effect is something like: ‘My wife. Get it? MY wife. You heard that right.’ The papyrus fragment seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch,” he wrote.
Liberal Actress Lena Dunham: It was a ‘Huge Disappointment’ When I Realized I was Straight
April 10, 2014 By Greg Campbell
Sometimes, people are just born straight…
Lena Dunham, the leftist crusader and star of HBO’s Girls has come forward with her disappointment in realizing that she is heterosexual.
In a recent interview with the NY Post, the ultra-left celebrity admitted that she was disappointed when she realized she was straight, but was thankful that her sister came out as homosexual because then someone in her family was representing her values.
According to the NY Post:
Lena Dunham spoke warmly about her sister coming out as gay at age 17 at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library on Monday.
“This is probably the most attractive room I have yet to enter,” she told the crowd at the event for the Point Foundation, which helps LGBTQ students.
“Gay men clean up real good, which is probably why I have dated so many of you,” she joked.
The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”
Of course, a person’s sexuality is entirely their business; however, at the same time that homosexual activists attempt to downplay the differences between homosexual partnerships and heterosexual partnerships, it serves as a glaring contradiction when homosexuality is celebrated and affirmation of one’s heterosexuality can be classified as a “disappointment.”