Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: George W. Bush

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 27, 2014:

In Search of the Second Amendment

On Thursday, a federal judge upheld Colorado’s new gun-control laws that mandate background checks for all gun sales and limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger issued her 50-page ruling on the 2013 laws after a two-week civil trial in late March and early April in Denver.

The lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiffs including sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters, and shooting ranges. Krieger ruled last year that the sheriffs could not sue the state in their official capacities but they could join the lawsuit as private citizens.

In her ruling, Judge Krieger (who was appointed to the position in 2001 by then-President George W. Bush) made clear from the beginning that she wasn’t going to rule on whether or not the new laws made sense:

A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation. Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible….

The judge just only compares the public policy adopted by the legislature against the constitutional minimums that protect individual rights….

This Court will not express a qualitative opinion as to whether a law is “good” or “bad,” “wise” or “unwise,” “sound policy” or a “hastily-considered overreaction.”

After determining that most of the plaintiffs had standing to sue, she focused her attention on the impact that limiting magazine capacities would have on both criminal shooters and law-abiding citizens:

Plaintiffs argue that by limiting magazines to 15 rounds or less, this statute impairs an individual’s Second Amendment “right of self-defense.” Colorado reflexively responds that because people can still defend themselves, no Second Amendment right is impaired.

She then notes that the offending laws do not directly regulate firearms at all, but only the size of the magazines that feed them:

Because [the magazine limit law] regulates only the number of rounds in a magazine, it does not affect whether the semiautomatic firearm can be used, or even whether it can be used in a semiautomatic mode. It only affects how often it must be reloaded.

She said the scope of the law is universal but its impact is not severe enough to render it unconstitutional:

This ban applies to every person in Colorado, in every venue, and for every use, including self-defense inside and outside of the home.

It impacts a large number of semiautomatic firearms, both handguns and rifles. Viewed in this light, the scope of the statute is broad, and it touches the core of an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

But because its impact on that right is so minor, the judge said, she overlooked it as any kind of impediment to the government’s overriding interest in “public safety”:

Despite such broad scope, however, the statute’s impact on a person’s ability to keep and bear (use) firearms for the purpose of self-defense is not severe….

Thus, this statute does not prevent the people of Colorado from possessing semiautomatic weapons for self-defense, or from using those weapons as they are designed to function. The only limitation imposed is how frequently they must reload their weapons.

She decided that the “pause” (when a criminal shooter runs out of ammunition during an attack in order to reload gives his victims time to run away and hide while giving more time for armed officials to intervene) was a distinct advantage of the new law. She failed to mention that the alleged invented shooter in her scenario wasn’t likely to limit himself under the new law. Instead, she concentrated on how limiting magazines to 15 rounds would scarcely impact an honest citizen’s ability to defend himself: “No evidence presented here suggests that the general ability of a person to defend him or herself is seriously diminished if magazines are limited to 15 rounds.”

Besides, she wrote, most “incidents” involved criminals intending mayhem are resolved without any shots being fired:

First, the defensive purpose of firearms is often achieved without shots being fired whatsoever. Mr. [Massad] Ayoob [an expert witness called for the plaintiffs in the case] testified that, often, merely the defensive display of a firearm is sufficient to defuse the threat….

In these types of circumstances, a restriction on a magazine size in no way diminishes the ability of the firearm user to defend him or herself.

Therefore, wrote the judge, the modest infringement of a Second Amendment right is acceptable:

The Court finds that although [the law limiting magazines to 15 rounds] burdens the operation of semiautomatic weapons, the burden is not severe because it does not materially reduce the ability of a person to use a semiautomatic firearm for self-defense, not does it reduce the effectiveness of self-defensive efforts.

One wonders if our nation’s Founders would be impressed with the argument that infringements of the Second Amendment are allowed because they are modest.

Krieger made short work of another complaint, that background checks required in all private transactions are unconstitutional. She noted that the plaintiffs didn’t really make that argument at all, but instead focused on temporary transfers being hampered unnecessarily:

Plaintiffs do not argue that requiring background checks for the private sale of firearms is unconstitutional. Rather, they focus their challenge on the effect of the statute on temporary transfers [i.e., loans] when ownership of the firearm does not change.

But since the Second Amendment and other court rulings have failed to address the issue of such temporary transfers of a firearm from an owner to a borrower, therefore it doesn’t count:

It is not at all clear that the Second Amendment prevents the government from restricting the ability of persons to acquire firearms via temporary loans from others….

Logically, if the government can lawfully regulate the ability of persons to obtain firearms from commercial dealers, the same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial [private] transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

Upon learning of the decision, the plaintiffs had plenty to say about it. The Colorado State Shooting Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, called it “disappointing on many levels” and asserted that the ruling missed the whole point concerning the Second Amendment:

The significance of the Second Amendment as a core portion of the Bill of Rights and its importance has virtually no reference in the decision. Most noteworthy was the court’s focus on the important government interest at hand while ignoring the complete absence of support for [it] in the legislative record.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, a leader among the plaintiffs, added:

While we respect the judge’s ruling today, we believe that it is plainly wrong on the law and on the facts….

[The laws] are still unenforceable. And that is borne out in that there has not been one arrest on these two laws to date.

The ruling was not without its supporters, however. State Senator Mary Hodge, a Democrat from Thornton and a sponsor of the bills, remarked:

This is public safety. Having people have to pause to reload [during a mass shooting] saves lives. These school shooters, for the most part, did not know how to reload their weapons, so this limit on large-capacity magazines is good.

Eileen McCarron, head of the anti-gun Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund, said the lawsuit was a waste of time and money:

This was a politically motivated lawsuit that has been grasping at straws from day one. These laws are reasonable protections against gun violence that many states have adopted and have repeatedly passed the test of constitutionality.

And Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, whose office defended the laws, said he was just doing his job:

Like Judge Krieger, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has never asserted that the laws in question are good, wise or sound policy. As it does in all cases, the AG’s Office has fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the Colorado law[s] in question. The Attorney General’s Office fully expects the case to be appealed and looks forward to final resolution of the issues as soon as possible.

If left to stand upon appeal, Judge Krieger’s ruling illustrates just how our fundamental rights given by God and guaranteed by the Constitution are lost: an inch at a time. Krieger, in her ruling, failed to address the word “infringe,” which could have shed more light on the rights she was allowing to be compromised. “Infringe” means to violate, transgress, encroach, or trespass. The Latin root infringere means “to break” or “weaken.” In that light, the laws just ruled constitutional by her court remain unconstitutional after all.

One awaits the appeal with eager anticipation.

Please Log In To Comment

Keep Reading…

Jay Carney Resigns, Sets Record for Obfuscation

 

New White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's f...

New White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s first briefing (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

This article first appeared at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, June 2, 2014:

In an astonishing admission, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, after reviewing the Obama administration’s scandals, wrote:

The Obama presidency’s parade of miscues is jaw-dropping….

This president and his closest aides are the most negligent managers of the federal government in our lifetimes.

There’s the Fast and Furious scandal, the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the IRS attack on conservative groups, the ObamaCare disaster, and now the Veterans Affairs scandal. These, along with others, have made White Press Secretary Jay Carney’s life miserable.

He has been the media mouthpiece for the administration since February 2011, the same administration that is “committed” to “transparency.” Here’s what the president said following his inauguration in 2009:

Keep Reading…

Two Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions Grant Immunity to Police, Secret Service

Police Tape

Following the announcements on Monday of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions in two “qualified immunity” cases, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, expressed dismay:

Not a day goes by without reports of police officers overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and brutalizing, terrorizing and killing the citizenry. Indeed, the list of incidents in which unaccountable police abuse their power, betray their oath of office and leave taxpayers bruised, broken and/or killed grows longer and more tragic by the day to such an extent that Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

This lawlessness on the part of government officials, an unmistakable characteristic of a police state, is made possible in large part by the courts, which increasingly defer to law enforcement and prioritize security over civil liberties. In so doing, the government gives itself free rein to abuse the law, immune from reproach, and we are all the worse off for it.

A closer look at the two cases to which Whitehead refers, however, reveals

Keep Reading…

Media Hides Real Reasons NY Times’ Senior Editor was Fired

The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr

The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr (Photo credit: Thomas Hawk)

This article was first published at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 16, 2014:

All was sweetness and light following the meeting on Wednesday afternoon when New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. pulled the plug on his Executive Editor, Jill Abramson:

I chose to appoint a new leader for our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom….

It is not about the quality of our journalism, which in my mind has never been better. Jill did an outstanding job in preserving and extending the level of excellence of our news report[ing] during her time as executive editor and, before that, as managing editor and Washington bureau chief. She’s an accomplished journalist who contributed mightily to our reputation as the world’s most important news provider.

Further, this is not about any disagreement over the direction of our digital future or any of the steps we have taken recently to create and launch new digital products and services. Jill and I agreed fundamentally about the need to embrace new platforms and new expressions of our journalism. She helped a great deal in moving the Times further into our digital future.

And Abramson responded in kind:

I’ve loved my run at the Times. I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much [outstanding] journalism.

If everything was so lovey-dovey, why was she canned? After all,

Keep Reading…

Senior Editor at New York Times Fired on Wednesday

IMG_5653

(Photo credit: US Department of Labor)

The only people caught by surprise at the sudden firing of Executive Editor Jill Abramson at the New York Times on Wednesday were those not paying attention. Back in January she infuriated the White House with her candid assessment of its restrictions and lack of transparency for reporters from the Times trying to vet various articles for the paper. She told Al Jazeera:

Keep Reading…

Faux Republican Conservative Ben Sasse wins in Nebraska

Nebraska, Our Nation's Capital

Nebraska, Our Nation’s Capital (Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)

The winner of the Nebraska Republican primary on Tuesday was Midland University President Ben Sasse, and Tea Partiers rejoiced. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, was delighted to learn of Sasse’s victory, exulting that he would add to the influence of other Tea Party favorites (i.e., Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) already in Washington:

They’ve got reinforcements coming in January. This is a win not just for Ben Sasse but for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.

She probably hadn’t read Dean Clancy’s musings on whether Sasse is the real deal, or not. Early in February, Clancy, Vice President for Public Policy at FreedomWorks, posted a blog entitled

Keep Reading…

IRS Revokes Tax-exempt Status from Patrick Henry Center

English: US Postage stamp, Credo issue of 1961...

US Postage stamp, Credo issue of 1961, 4c, famous quote by Patrick Henry (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, at last, Gary Aldrich is free to speak his mind on matters of great concern to him without having to worry about overstepping the bounds imposed on his First Amendment rights by the Internal Revenue Service. His Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty had its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code revoked, effective last July. The final determination letter was dated December 31 but just released to the media this week. It said:

Keep Reading…

Preliminary Polls Show Chances Improving for Repubicans to take back the Senate in November

Alan Abramowitz introducing former foster yout...

Alan Abramowitz (Photo credit: flguardian2)

Despite the elections being seven months away – a virtual lifetime in politics – pollsters are coming out of the woodwork to offer their statistical opinions on the outcome in November.  Most of them agree that control of the Senate, now firmly in Democrat hands, is

Keep Reading…

America’s Economic Freedom Slide Continues, says the Heritage Foundation

The latest Index of Economic Freedom released by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal shows just how successful the Bush and Obama administrations have been in their seeming attempts to turn the United States into a third world economy. The index shows

Keep Reading…

1.3 million Lose Federal Unemployment Benefits, Another 2 million to Follow

Because the budget deal signed into law last week didn’t extend federal unemployment benefits, some 1.3 million people won’t be getting their $1,166 monthly checks, starting in January. By June another 1.9 million will be cut off.

Keynesians are sputtering nonsense about the need to extend benefits. President Obama called it an

Keep Reading…

New York Times Touts New Study to Resolve Mental Health Conflict with the Second Amendment

The front page of Sunday’s New York Times led with “When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill”, a nearly 5,000-word essay by two journalists amping up the volume in the latest attack on the Second Amendment. The motive was clear from the beginning:

Keep Reading…

Charges that the GOP is Caving on the Shutdown Prove False as President Drops Further in Polls

Within days of the government shutdown pundits began to estimate just how long the hard-core Tea Party members in the House would maintain their stand against funding Obamacare. One even listed the names of eighteen members who were already “caving in” while noting another four

Keep Reading…

Lifting the Curtain on Booz Allen Hamilton and its owner, the Carlyle Group

According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton, have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. By the time top management at Booz Allen learned that one of their top-level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.

For years Carlyle had, according to WaPo,

Keep Reading…

National Taxpayers Union Finds Major Spending Shift in 112th Congress

The report from the National Taxpayers Union’s foundation, the NTUF, published on Tuesday, illustrates a massive shift in spending versus cutting that occurred during the 112th Congress from 2010 to 2012. If the trend continues in the current Congress and on into 2014 and beyond, the 112th Congress might just be the

Keep Reading…

The Changing Demographics of Election 2012

Voting 1

(Photo credit: Cle0patra)

On Sunday before Election Day, the Pew Research Center released its final prediction on the outcome of the election: President Obama would win, beating Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney, 50% to 47%. When all votes were tallied, Obama beat Romney, 50.6% to 47.8%.

Pew acknowledged that the president’s virtual takeover of the media in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy just before the election persuaded some who were undecided to vote for the president. According to Pew:

Obama’s handling of the storm’s aftermath may have contributed to his improved showing. Fully 69% of all likely voters approve of the way Obama is handling the storm’s impact.

Even a plurality of Romney supporters (46%) approve of Obama’s handling of the situation; more important, so too do 63% of swing voters.

In its final pre-election survey of 2,709 voters conducted from October 31 through November 3, Pew began to see how the electorate was moving. 39% of likely voters supported Obama strongly whereas just a third of them strongly supported Romney. Noted Pew: “In past elections…the candidate with the higher percentage of strong support has usually gone on to win the popular vote.”

Among women voters, Pew noted the most dramatic shift towards Obama, favoring him 53% to just 40% for Romney – a 13 point margin and a 6 point gain from just a week before.

Meanwhile, Pew noted that among voters age 65 and older, Romney’s support began to fade down the home stretch. Romney’s 19-point lead in Pew’s previous poll had declined to just 9 points in the latest one.

On Wednesday, November 7, Pew released its post-election analysis and noted that its prediction was

Keep Reading…

Another Obama Lie: “Trickle Down” Caused the Great Recession

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Jonah Goldberg does a pretty good job in neutralizing Obama’s claim that tax cuts and the free market caused the Great Recession. Obama refers to it incessantly:

“Now Gov. Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.” — President Obama, in an ad released Sept. 27.

As Goldberg notes, Obama uses it because it “resonates” with the voters – the ignoranti, I call them – who have not clue what he’s talking about, except that someone in the Romney camp is to blame.

Goldberg tries to explain why it’s a lie:

[Glenn Kessler, the “fact checker” at the Washington Post]  found that the Obama campaign has virtually no citations to back up the claim. The supporting material for the ad quoted above cites a single column by the Post’s liberal blogger, Ezra Klein, who told Kessler: “I am absolutely not saying the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence of that.”

So, surprise, surprise, the Obama campaign is telling a lie over and over again, because it “resonates,” not because

Keep Reading…

Obama Lost the Debate Because He Just “Showed Up”

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

This is a brutal yet accurate assessment of what happened at the debate: Obama was out of answers.

This was the first debate in which Obama has had a record to defend. In 2000, he ran for Congress in a primary race against [communist Black Panther] Bobby Rush and attacked the incumbent. In 2004, he ran successfully for the U.S. Senate, offering all sorts of promises — but never ran for re-election on their fulfillment.

In 2008, a blank-slate Obama ran for president and won by lumping in challenger John McCain with unpopular incumbent president George W. Bush — while offering [communist slogans] like “hope and change” and “yes, we can!”

Victor Davis Hanson is right on the button. When confronted with irrefutable facts, Obama folds like a cheap suit: 

Keep Reading…

I’m Not Voting for Obama, Either

Conor Friedersdorf – Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

I don’t see how anyone who confronts Obama’s record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I’d have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

Nope.

Señalización de lugar de votación en Californi...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Conor Friedersdorf is an odd duck. He has written for the certifiably liberal Atlantic magazine since 2009, and yet, according to Wikipedia,

In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.

Which must drive his readers crazy. He doesn’t fit into the liberal box. But his refusal to go along with his liberal readers and vote blindly for Obama is worth exploring a little bit. He doesn’t like Obama for many of the same reasons that I don’t:

Some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying…

What I am saying is that Obama has done things that…go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn’t a close call for me…

And then Friedersdorf does the unthinkable: he lists the reasons why:

  1. Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis…America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.
  2. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama’s kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed.
  3. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Those are three pretty good reasons. I could come up with several more, but these three are a good start.

Friedersdorf is planning on voting for Gary Johnson.

Where Did the Tea Party Republicans Go?

Wired – House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The House on Wednesday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

privacy

privacy (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Where are the Tea Party Republicans on this one? This re-authorization of a law that should never have been passed in the first place (thanks, George, for that) passed the House by 301 to 118. Most of those voting against it were – ready? – Democrats!  Only seven Republicans mustered enough courage to say no to warrantless wire-tapping!

This is from the article in Wired.com:

The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

So the whole fishing expedition is wrapped in secrecy.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, sponsored the bill, saying that it “is one of the most important votes we cast in this Congress” because “terrorists are committed to the destruction of our country.”

Question: what about the terrorists in Congress who are determined to shred what remains of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and turn the country into a dictatorship? As Pastor Chuck Baldwin just wrote in his weekly newsletter:

Think of it: in the name of the 9-11 attacks, the United States is being transformed into the kind of despotic countries that we are told we are being protected from!

There was at least one small voice for common sense, expressed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren – a Democrat from California! – who said: “I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time [what a concept!]. We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States.”

Accurate and persuasive. But not enough to persuade the Tea Partiers to vote against it.

Already Made Up Your Mind About Paul Ryan? Read This!

Chuck Baldwin: Paul Ryan is More of the Same

It has happened again. We go through this every four years, and every four years the vast majority of “conservatives” fall for it. This is such a broken record. What did Forrest Gump say: “Stupid is as stupid does”? And wasn’t it P.T. Barnum who said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”? Well, here we go again.

English: This is a photo of Dr. Charles "...

This is a photo of Dr. Charles “Chuck” Baldwin, the 2008 Constitution PartyPresidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re still with me, then you’re still open to talk about Ryan. Before we do, however, I need to tell you a little more about Chuck Baldwin. Once you know his background then you’ll understand why he is credible and why what he says is important.

I’m going to take a couple of quotes from Wikipedia’s entry about Baldwin which I think fairly presents the man. First, from Wiki’s general introduction:

Charles Obadiah “Chuck” Baldwin (born May 3, 1952) is an American politician and founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He was the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party for the 2008 U.S. presidential election and had previously been its nominee for U.S. vice president in 2004. He hosts a daily one-hour radio program, Chuck Baldwin Live, and writes a daily editorial column carried on its website, on News with Views, and on VDare.

As a Republican Party member, Baldwin was state chairman of the Florida Moral Majority in the 1980s. However, during the 2000 campaign of Republican George W. Bush for U.S. President, Baldwin left the party and began a long period of criticism of Bush. Baldwin endorsed U.S. Representative Ron Paul for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, and Paul in turn endorsed Baldwin for the presidency in the 2008 general election.

Baldwin supports ending U.S. involvement in the United Nations, reducing U.S. income taxes, and repeal of the Patriot Act. He would withdraw troops from Iraq and seek to end illegal immigration by enforcing immigration laws. He supports the gold standard, the right to keep and bear arms, homeschooling, and the proposed Sanctity of Life Act, which would define “human life” and legal personhood as beginning at conception, and prevent federal courts from hearing cases on abortion-related legislation.

This entry from Wiki illustrates his character. He quit his church in Florida and moved to Montana. He thinks he will be more effective in the freedom fight there.

Think about this: here is a successful pastor, highly regarded by his flock, who gives it up to get more involved in the fight to preserve our freedoms. Name another pastor like that. I can’t think of one. My own pastor never said one word about the freedom fight from the pulpit during his seven years of preaching. Talk about a disconnect from reality! I love the man and his message. And I miss him (he just left our church to teach young pastors how to preach). But he never said one word, ever, about the approaching totalitarian storm that is gathering about us. And neither will his students.

Here’s the Wiki entry about his move to Montana:

In 2010, Baldwin retired from his position as pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church and announced his intention to move to Montana, because he believed God had told him that the Mountain states were the “tip of the spear in the freedom fight…”

In a June 9, 2011 article, Baldwin outlined his reasons for choosing the Flathead Valley of Western Montana for his family’s home. He cited Montana’s freedom-loving people, its recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, and a feeling of strong conviction, following prayer.

That’s why, when he has something to say, I usually listen closely. Here’s what he has to say about Paul Ryan:

Let’s just get this on the record: since 1960, there have only been two Presidential nominees (from the two major parties) who were not controlled by the globalist elitists. One was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; the other was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was shot and killed; Reagan was shot.

Every other President, Democrat or Republican, has been totally controlled, which is why none of them have done diddly-squat to make a difference in the direction of the country. On the issues that really matter, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are just more of the same!

Here’s what you don’t want to know if you still think Ryan is a true conservative:

Jane Aitken wrote an excellent synopsis of Paul Ryan’s voting record that appeared on LewRockwell.com. She noted that Ryan voted for federalizing rules for driver licenses; voted to make the Patriot Act permanent; voted to allow electronic surveillance without a warrant; voted to authorize military force in Iraq; voted to spend an “emergency” $78 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; voted to declare Iraq part of the “War on Terror” with no exit date; and voted against redeploying US troops out of Iraq.

Aitken also wrote, “Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.”

There it is. Ryan is just one more kept politician working to fool conservatives into thinking he’s one of them. He’s not.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann