A President Is Not A King, And States Must Make Sure Of That

Our nation’s first president, George Washington, under the newly formed Constitution in 1789, found himself in an uncomfortable position. As the nation’s first Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, he knew the delicate ground between strength and tyranny. Fearing any comparison to the monarchal government from which America had just been liberated, Washington took care to avoid any physical or symbolic references to European monarchs. When the Senate proposed that he be called by the official title “His Highness the President of the United States of America and the Protector of Their Liberties,” an abashed Washington opted for the more modest address of “Mr. President.”

How far we have come in America. Since Washington’s modesty, there has been no implication that the president of these United States has ever been handed the unilateral authority of kings, monarchs, or dictators.

How unfortunate the present Senate, and all of Congress for that matter, has refused to stop recent presidents from self-nominations to this title.  

President Obama’s use of executive orders, whether it be immigration or the people’s right to bear arms, have been entirely un-Constitutional, which is to say lawless – and by definition, criminal. With no cognizance of Constitutional authority or the will of the people he was elected to protect, the self-nominated monarch announced on Monday his new executive actions on gun control, while a newly released Gallup Poll shows that “guns/gun control” ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

Even if gun control is a concern, the federal government has no authority to speak to this issue because of the God-given right to self defense, the preservation of life, and the law of the land stating unequivocally that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”

Many kings and monarchs of antiquity suffered from the dangerous Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and others. This is not a disorder that should be left unchecked in our leaders.

Understand, elected state leaders: your duty is to interpose between your citizens and a central government bent on tyranny. Simply put, you must stake a claim. You cannot remain silent, because silence implies consent.

George Washington believed, “When People shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.”

The Hebrew prophet Isaiah resolved, “When God’s judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.”

Democrat or Republican, state officials and citizens alike must learn and resist tyranny in all of its forms.


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Mr. Obama: Stalin, Hitler, And Mussolini All Agree With Your Gun Control Measures!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (violated).  

If we could ask President George Washington, What was the purpose of this amendment?”, he would tell us

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

We would do well to heed George Washingtons warning, since governments, under the guise of gun control and the pretense of making their citizens more safe,have exterminated over 56 million of their own people in the recent 20th century.

One such leader was Joseph Stalin, who conspired: “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.

Ben Carson recently reminded Americans of one of Stalins equally wicked contemporaries, Adolph Hitler, formulating the notion that guns may have stopped the Holocaust. Of course, guns eventually did; unfortunately, it had to be the guns of the Allied Powers after millions were murdered.

Carson elaborated, saying: 

I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed. Theres a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first.

So just why does the Supreme Court, as an example, have to take on a challenge to a Chicago-area law banning semi-automatic rifles, a ban that has been enacted by California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.? Why are sheriffs in the counties of these states complying with this calamitous mentality? It’s NOT law; the Second Amendment is!

Civil authorities should be standing behind recent massacre survivors who have told the president to quit with the gun control.

Americans should be imitating the 8,000 people who signed onto a website declaring that the president is not welcomein Oregon to deliver his Loathing American Liberty Speech.

Dead dictator Benito Mussolini dealt with protestors like this by stating to the Italian Senate in 1931: The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.  This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.

This smacks of Obama, who the Washington Post stated “is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements.…”  

Adding to the fateful mental hazard, in California, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 707, which seeks to prohibit legal conceal carry owners from carrying handguns for self-defense onto California school grounds. With the stroke of a pen, Governor Brown is attempting to deny the God-given right of self-defense from potential innocent victims!

Mussolini, Jerry Brown, Obama, Stalin, and the gun-grabbing media have all proven themselves to be enemies of the Constitution. They have shown their blatant intent to disregard delegated, God-ordained power. The answer is in the history books:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.  –Thomas Jefferson

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Watch: She Saw A Jaw-Dropping ‘Sign From God’ And Pointed Her Camera At The Sky

Awe and wonder pervaded those watching a magnificent iridescent, multi-colored cloud phenomenon in Costa Rica on Tuesday, leaving many wondering if the touch of God had come to the skies.

“It was breathtaking. It’s like a sign of God,” said Jessie Montealegre.

The spectacle was sighted in multiple cities, including San Jose, Parrita, Pavas, Escazu and Hatillo. Many filmed the event.

“The skies opened up as if it were the end of times — It was truly a beautiful glimpse of what our God has in store for us on the day he comes back,” wrote Jessielou121 in her video’s description, posted on YouTube.

“We were just so amazed,” said Joey Petit of Escazu, whose 11-year-old son recorded the unique formation. “We had no idea what it was and we’d never seen anything like it.”

Although many who experienced the wonder of the event looked to religion as an explanation, and some pondered the influence of aliens, the experts said the light formation was caused by a rare weather phenomenon called “cloud iridescence.”

The colorful show is caused by the sun’s light being refracted by water droplets and ice crystals in the cloud, said Eladio Solano, a meteorologist with Costa Rica’s National Meteorological Institute.

The large storm cloud ” grows taller and taller and it can encounter winds building across the top of it and it can push it up and act like an obstacle. This can cause ice crystals and water droplets to form and leads to the beautiful and iridescent appearance. It’s not a common cloud to see,” said Gavin Pretor-Pinney.

Amid debate between experts and laymen whether the cloud is either a religious or natural phenomenon, one famous American maintained long ago that the world had room for both.

“A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to,” wrote George Washington.

h/t: ABC News

Citizenship: It Is A Parent Thing, Not A Child Thing

Our Founders established the criteria of Natural Born Citizen upon our President for a very important reason. Natural Born Citizen meant, to our framers, a child born of two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the child. If you are not sure of this, or perhaps disagree, please read this article based upon fact & history before you go on: https://goo.gl/sFkKUm  

A person who is born of just one parent who is a citizen of the United States is a citizen by birth, but not Natural Born Citizen. Someone cannot hold or have held dual citizenship with a foreign country and be a Natural Born Citizen. The fact that we are confused by this qualification, or perhaps even wish to alter this qualification, must be because we do not understand WHY this qualification was established in the first place. So, before we take a stand either way, we must consider the reasons why this qualification was established by the framers of the American Constitution.

The whole reason the president must be a Natural Born Citizen is because our framers had a history full of foreign kings imposing foreign law and foreign favor upon the people, and they knew how dangerous foreign influence was to Liberty. George Washington spent a great bit of effort trying to drive this understanding home in his Farewell Address of 1796:

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Washington knew from his history the real dangers of foreign influence. Part of Washington’s British Constitution was a document called the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, in which the people of Great Britain listed many grievances against their King, Charles I. They indicated that these grievances were indicative of a larger design to overturn and undermine Liberty of the people and the Law of the Land. One of the grievances illustrates how foreign influence and foreign law have contributed to that destruction of Liberty:

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home.”

In another part of the British Constitution, this time the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the people of Great Britain actually require an oath of their King and his council to shun all foreign influence:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Protecting the United States from foreign influence was very prominent in the minds of our framers, especially in the office of president. At the time of the creation of the Constitution by the States, there were no Natural Born Citizens; so an exception was made until that qualification could be met. Article 2, section 1, clause 5 reads:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The exception to the Natural Born Citizen requirement was that the President must be a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833,” explains that this was to ensure that people who were “Patriots of the Revolution” could be considered for this office.

“This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.”

This is an important distinction that helps us understand WHY the Natural Born Citizen requirement is a must. The President is the commander in chief of the military. Our framers knew from their history that it would be extremely dangerous to allow someone of foreign influence to exercise power over our military. Founder John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787, expressing this very point:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The commander in chief could have no fractionalized loyalty. The commander in chief must be loyal to the United States, first and only. Prior to being a Natural Born Citizen, a candidate for president would have proven that loyalty by having been a “distinguished revolutionary patriot.” Once time established the availability of Natural Born Citizen candidates, that unbroken loyalty would be proven in party by the fact that both parents were citizens of the United States, establishing that the candidate would have been raised in a home with loyalty only to the United States.

When a child is raised in a home where one or both parents are citizens of a foreign country, then that child will naturally be raised with an attachment to that foreign country out of love for that parent. Our framers knew that in time of military crisis, our commander in chief must be free from all attachments and bias with a foreign country; it mattered not if that bias was for or against the foreign country. The president must not hesitate or haste in matters of war. He must only act upon the best interest of the United States, free from internal conflict. George Washington explains this fact in his Farewell Address:

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.”

Alexander Hamilton gives another perspective of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. He postulates why a foreign country might actually want to raise up someone to become president of the United States, and the inherent danger in that possibility:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Just as the birth of a child on US soil does not create citizenship in the parent, the birthplace of the child does not establish the status of Natural Born Citizen. Throughout history, citizenship has been based upon the criteria of the parents. It has not been linked to the child. This criteria of Natural Born Citizen does not deviate from that norm.  

In summary, the entire reason for establishing the criteria for a president to be a Natural Born Citizen was to help to eliminate any possibility that the commander in chief of the military would be influenced by love or hate of a foreign nation. Because of this well established and historically justified reason, we should think very long and hard before we consider altering or diluting this established requirement through modern interpretation or modern court opinions. Our framers did what they did on purpose and with a purpose. We only endanger our Liberty when we assume they didn’t know what they were doing, and our advanced intellect means we can disregard their reasons for our own personal preferences. We would do well to learn from this history, instead of dooming ourselves to repeat history’s mistakes.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Ferguson Is Sick—But What Is The Proper Cure?

We are barraged again by war in our midst, a war over something as nonsensical as skin color. This war has been with us since the creation of man in God’s own image; and its root is an innate hatred towards God, best reflected in the discriminatory destruction of our fellow man due to any quality, as seen in the case of Cain and Abel. This hatred is a sickness we bring upon ourselves when we agree with the enemy of God that men are not created equal, nor endowed by that Creator with unalienable rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of Happiness.

The Gospel of Peace teaches people of every color and nationality that hate is synonymous with murder. Clearly, a stop must be put to incidents of hate of all parties concerned like those in Ferguson, but how?

Many have looked to force of law, civil education, and Government to cure this sickness. Force of law says bring in more troops; civil education says empower the same adverse mind that enhanced this hatred; and government’s schizophrenic personalities are ignoring it altogether or embracing and exploiting it for political gain. 

None of these are solutions, and there is no solution to this epidemic in man-created systems.  

George Washington declared: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Champion of equal rights and Baptist Minister Martin Luther King Jr., stated: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

So who is responsible to instill love into society? Government? Secular education? The law?

I have previously highlighted the response of the Charleston Emanuel AME Church after the tragic shooting during their worship service, and how they created a foundation of restoration, unity and love from which human and societal blessings can flow. What the Church did not do is take the incident of hate as an opportunity to protest, vandalize, rob, loot, or hate back. Instead, we saw singing, praying, and forgiveness. 

This is the answer! The American Church body is responsible for the jurisdiction of love. The Church instills the necessary religion and virtue into our society. 

Frederick Douglass once said: “The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”

My conclusion: Ferguson will remain sick until the Church takes its rightful role to speak the prophetic Word of God to restore unity and heal a wound that has continued to breed and destroy lives of all skin colors and backgrounds.

It is time America looks to the God of the Bible as the solution just as so many great leaders, like George Washington, Frederick Douglass, or Martin Luther King Jr., once did.  We won’t be healed without Him.


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth