Posts Tagged ‘Anti American’
As you witness the blatant destruction and violation of the “Oath of Office” above by Tod Jones the new director of the BATF, we are faced with more Constitutional usurpation from the Executive Branch and Congress, why Congress? As past experience has proven, they just stand by as neutered eunuchs providing the implementation through silence or outright collaboration?
Well… feast your Patriotic eyes on the most recent addition of illegal orders issued by Barry and company… I have spoken to many FFL dealers (some, self described as defacto arms of the BATF although they have received no such authority) and others in the general public collection of sheep about the current climate regarding some of these executive orders. The dominant response is that “they don’t like it” or some other snarky comment directed at Barry, Biden or Democrats in general, not much about the Republicans responsible for facilitating their Un-Constitutional efforts, even the “you don’t have to worry unless your doing something wrong” B/S opinion that most uninformed cowards subscribe to.
These “new rules” are based on lies and more lies but that is how it works in DC…isn’t it? eg: According to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), you can not own or posses a firearm as a felon in the UNITED STATES, even if you have a trust, or are part of a trust or corporation! Thats it! What then, is the real purpose of this executive order, hmmm? I am no Constitutional Scholar like Barry claims to be, although I have been studying the bill of rights for many years, yet… I am still unable to locate the real source and/or authority for this defacto law.
Like most laws, Constitutional Amendments and regulations created by unelected political bodies since reconstruction, the Sheeple have just accepted it… the public rule seems to be, NEVER QUESTION PERCEIVED AUTHORITY!
The question has to be asked again and again, but it seems to be falling on def ears in America, “When is Enough, Enough“?
Very few, if any in Congress represent you, and that is the sole description of their job directive, it is irrevocably broken! You cannot “vote out” systemic corruption of this caliber, nor is there a real willingness of the sheep to do it, incumbency reigns as usual… This includes some self described Patriots , Like Republicans claiming conservatism.
The three branches of Government have violated their Oath so many times it is impossible to count and all with the apathetic blessing of “We the People”. The options to this Great Republic are narrowing day by day… be careful out there, when we are forced to keep our ears to the ground and watch our six, our asses are exposed… DEFCON III
White House announces new gun restrictions
The White House announced two new executive orders to curb gun violence on Thursday, building on the 23 executive orders President Obama signed in the aftermath of the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
The first order closes a loophole that allows felons and other people who would be prohibited from owning guns to circumvent the law by registering their guns with a corporation or trust, which would exempt them from the requisite background check. A fact sheet distributed by the White House notes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) “received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations” in 2012 alone.
The new executive order requires individuals associated with trusts and corporations that acquire weapons to undergo background checks just as they would if they registered the guns in their own name.
At the ceremonial swearing-in on Thursday of Todd Jones, the new director of the ATF, Vice President Biden said the loophole provided felons and others prohibited from owning guns an “easy way to evade required background checks.” With the new executive order, he added, that “artful dodge” would be a thing of the past.
The second executive order announced Thursday aims to keep military-grade weapons off the streets by prohibiting private entities from re-importing firearms that the United States previously provided to foreign allies. Currently, the law requires U.S. government approval before these weapons can be re-imported. According to the White House, over 250,000 such weapons have been brought home since 2005.
Biden noted that, prior to 2005, that re-importation wasn’t occurring. The new executive order, he said, would end the “practice of allowing countries to send back to the United States these military weapons to private entities. Period.”
The executive order institutes a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back to the United States. A few private entities, like museums, are exempted from the new restriction.
- Biden on gun reform: “We’re not going to back down”
- 2014: The next frontier in the gun control battle?
After his show of support for the new gun restrictions, Biden, who has spearheaded the administration’s push to curb gun violence throughout 2013, ceremonially swore in Jones, who became the first permanent director of the ATF since 2006.
Thursday’s swearing-in was a “long time in coming,” Biden said, and it put the ATF “fully back in business.”
Jones, who has been the acting director of the ATF since 2011 as he awaited Senate confirmation, thanked Biden and the rest of the administration for the “privilege” of leading the bureau, promising to take the ATF’s enforcement activities to “the next level” in his stead as director.
The executive orders, while sure to be greeted with open arms by gun control advocates, are a mark of just how paralyzed the politics of gun violence have become in America. In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, President Obama unveiled a raft of proposals, including an expansion of background checks, a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, and a ban on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. Many of the proposals required congressional approval, but within months, the legislative machinery had stalled, leaving executive action as the administration’s only recourse.
On Thursday, Biden said he and Mr. Obama remain “committed” to legislative action to reduce gun violence, promising, “If Congress won’t act, we’ll fight for a new Congress. It’s that simple. But we’re going to get this done.”
Trouble in Iowa,
The Law Of The Sword by Chuck Baldwin, January 17, 2013
The Law Of The Sword
By Chuck Baldwin
January 17, 2013
This column is archived here.
My last two columns which stated that my line in the sand has been drawn and I will NOT register or surrender my firearms, even if that makes me a lawbreaker (in the sight of government), have generated multiplied thousands of reader responses. And while the vast majority of these responses expressed complete agreement, there were several responses from professing Christians telling me that I was in violation of Holy Scripture for making such a stand.
As one might expect, some of my brethren argued the erroneous “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” interpretation of Romans 13. For the sake of the many new readers of this column, let me point out that my son, constitutional Christian attorney Timothy Baldwin, and I have co-written a pivotal book dealing with this fallacious interpretation of Romans 13 in a book entitled “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” This book takes the entire Word of God to show that nowhere does the Bible teach (including in Romans 13) that Christians should submit to unlawful government. In fact, just the opposite is taught: Christians often have a duty to RESIST unlawful government.
To order the Romans 13 book, go to:
Also, you can order my four-part video message series (on one DVD) entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” Order it at:
But perhaps the verse of Scripture that my slightly confused brethren quoted most in their attempt to rebuke me was Matthew 26:52, “Then said Jesus unto him [Simon Peter], Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (KJV) This, they said, proves that Christians have no right to keep and bear arms if the government said it was illegal to do so. However, with all due respect, this interpretation is opposed to the overwhelming evidence of Scripture to the contrary.
In the first place, consider what Jesus said just a few moments before making this statement. Just before arriving in the Garden of Gethsemane (where the statement was made to Peter to “put up thy sword”), Jesus told his disciples, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36 KJV)
After hearing Jesus’ command, the disciples replied, “Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke 22:38 KJV)
Notice that Jesus plainly and emphatically told Simon Peter and the others to arm themselves. So emphatic was Jesus’ command that He told them if they could not afford to purchase a sword they were instructed to sell their clothes if necessary and buy one.
After hearing Jesus’ command to arm themselves, the disciples noted that already two of the disciples were carrying arms. Jesus’ response, “It is enough,” did not mean that only two swords (out of eleven men–Judas Iscariot had already left to betray Christ) was sufficient, for He had plainly commanded EACH MAN to arm himself. He was simply acknowledging that they clearly understood what He had just told them.
Ladies and gentlemen, the First Century Roman sword was the most efficient and lethal personal defense weapon in the world at the time. It is no hyperbole or injustice to language to say that the Roman sword was the First Century equivalent to a modern AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to kill swiftly and efficiently. And Jesus commanded His disciples to buy and carry one!
Also note that the same word “sword” that is used in this passage is the same word that is used in Romans 13:4, “He (government) beareth not the sword in vain.” In other words, Jesus told His disciples to carry the same-type weapon that government soldiers were carrying at the time.
After this exchange, Jesus and His disciples walked to the Garden of Gethsemane where the events of Peter and the sword took place.
Simon Peter had already told Jesus that he was willing to die for him (yes, Jesus rightly predicted his denial, knowing how Simon would react to the events that unfolded in the garden), and when the armed soldiers from the High Priest (tantamount to the President’s Secret Service officers today) came to arrest Jesus, Simon Peter drew his sword in defense of his Master. He intended to cut off the soldier’s head, but the man ducked, and Simon cleanly sliced off his ear.
Notice that Jesus did not rebuke or chastise Simon. Remember when He sternly told Simon, “Get thee behind me, Satan”? No such rebuke is found here. And notice, too, that He did not tell Simon to “GIVE UP thy sword.” He said “PUT UP again thy sword into his place,” meaning into its scabbard. He fully expected Simon to retain possession of his sword.
It is also noteworthy that as Jesus was being arrested, the power of His voice totally overwhelmed the soldiers, which caused all of them to sway backward and fall to the ground. (John 18:6) This accomplished a couple of things: it caused every soldier in that garden to fully understand that theirs was not the preeminent power present. It also allowed His eleven disciples to leave unscathed TAKING THEIR WEAPONS WITH THEM, as the soldiers were either totally distracted by the surprise of what had just happened to them, or they were totally disinterested in attempting to disarm the disciples after this incredible demonstration of power against them.
But as Jesus had come to this earth to give Himself a ransom for sinful men, which meant that His betrayal, arrest, and crucifixion were all a part of God’s sovereign plan for His only begotten Son, Simon’s armed defense of Christ was not necessary. Jesus calmly reminded Simon of the legions of angels that were available for His defense, should He call on them. Then Jesus gave Simon the assurance that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
And despite what you’ve heard so many preachers say regarding this verse, this was not a WARNING to Simon Peter; it was a PROMISE to Simon Peter.
What Jesus was doing was assuring Simon Peter that the tyrannical Roman and Jewish forces that were now using the sword against Him would one day themselves be destroyed by the sword, but that it would not be Simon’s sword that would be the one to do this. In other words, Jesus was stating a divine principle that tyrants and despots who unjustly rule with the power of the sword would one day be brought to the judgment of the sword.
Jesus’ statement had nothing to do with Christians disarming themselves in the face of tyrants; it had everything to do with God’s pronouncement of judgment upon tyrants who force their will on people by the power of the sword. He was saying, “Those who ruthlessly rule and govern by the sword will be brought to justice by the sword.” THAT is what Jesus said.
Did Jesus’ promise come true? You bet it did. A few years later, the Jewish nation was destroyed by the Roman sword; and a few years after that, the Roman nation was destroyed by the sword of the Goths, et al.
This promise to tyrants is repeated by the Apostle John in Revelation 13:10. Here Jesus inspired John to write, “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
The context of Revelation 13:10 is unmistakable: those who put men into captivity by force shall themselves be put into captivity by force; those who kill with the sword shall themselves be killed with the sword. John then adds: “Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” In other words, the victimized, terrorized saints can take comfort in the fact that God will send His judgment to the oppressors in the like manner in which they oppressed others.
What John said in Revelation 13:10 was a repeat of what He had heard Jesus say in Matthew 26:52. Jesus telling Peter to put up his sword has absolutely nothing to do with Christians willingly surrendering their arms to an oppressive government. Instead, it is a promise to oppressors that if you live and rule by the sword, you will die by the sword!
And since Jesus had commanded them to do so, we can assume that His disciples carried their own personal arms for the rest of their lives. Yes, yes, I realize that the disciples allowed themselves to be martyred for their faith. They CHOSE to not “accept deliverance,” (Hebrews 11:35) as did the famed missionary, Jim Elliott, who was armed at the time of his death, and, therefore, was fully capable of defending himself against the savages that attacked him, but CHOSE to not defend himself, and thereby accepted the martyr’s death. But these examples have nothing to do with the divine principle of lawful self-defense, which Jesus duly recognized in His instructions to His disciples.
Pray tell, how did Gideon deliver God’s people from their oppressors? By “the sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” How did Samson throw off the tyrants of his people? How did Barak and Jephthah defeat Israel’s enemies? By the sword! And note that each of these deliverers were commissioned and empowered by God to use the sword to destroy those tyrants that had ruled by the power of the sword. This was God’s promised judgment on oppressors for thousands of years before Jesus uttered this eternal truism in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Second Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is as much a sacred right as it is an American right. The principle of armed self-defense is rooted in both Natural and Revealed Law. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to strip the American people of this right should be met with the most vociferous resistance, and that includes FROM CHRISTIANS!
Yet, all across America, pastors and Christians seem to be willing to sheepishly surrender their Second Amendment rights. Some are no doubt sincere; they are only reacting as their Christian mentors and leaders have told them is right to do. Others are no doubt using Scripture as a covering for their own cowardice.
But for those Christians who seek truth and genuinely desire to know how they should respond to this current attack against our Second Amendment liberties, my son, Tim, and I are in the process of producing a brand new book entitled “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book is designed to equip Christians with the scriptural tools and knowledge they will need to make wise decisions about the defense of their family. We are working hard to have this book ready for release by early spring.
Readers may pre-order this brand new book NOW and thus be assured of obtaining the very first copies of what is sure to be a blockbuster book. To order, go to:
And please remember that the book should be available by early spring.
I say once again: regardless of what laws are passed or not passed, I refuse to register or surrender my firearms–even if doing so makes me an outlaw. But as several readers pointed out to me: in such a scenario, I am not the outlaw; the ones who would try to disarm me are the outlaws. As I would not submit to a law that demanded that I surrender my spiritual sword (the Bible), neither will I submit to a law that demands that I surrender my physical sword (my firearms).
What Simon Peter told the Jewish leaders in Acts 5, after being ordered to surrender his preaching of truth, applies to any order of men that violates God’s eternal law–including the right of the people (including Christian people) to keep and bear arms: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” And so we ought!