Constitution

“Our Constitution Was Made Only For A Moral And Religious People, It Is Wholly Inadequate To The Government Of Any Other”

by
“Our Constitution Was Made Only For A Moral And Religious People, It Is Wholly Inadequate To The Government Of Any Other”

Steve contrasts the generation who fought the revolution & gave us our precious US Constitution & Bill of Rights with the generation who is now trying to replace it with Sharia law & Communism. George laments how 75% of Christians are giving tacit permission to The Left to destroy our society & our nation because they don’t vote.

Firearms Are Part of My Religion: The Armed Christian Creed

by

What if the duty to protect your family didn’t begin with the Second Amendment at all? The Armed Christian Creed argues that our responsibility to defend innocent life comes from God, while the Constitution simply recognizes and protects a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. We worship God, not our arms. They are not symbols of aggression, but tools carried with discipline, humility, and the hope they are never needed. The firearm is not sacred. The life we may someday be called upon to protect is.

Teddy Roosevelt Built a Nation of Riflemen. Then Democrats Tried to Kill It.

by

Theodore Roosevelt believed America was stronger when ordinary citizens knew how to shoot. For nearly a century, the federal government agreed—supporting the DCM, the National Matches, and even helping selected junior riflemen travel to Camp Perry to represent their states. Then came the 1990s, when Washington decided a program designed to create disciplined American marksmen was something that needed to be “terminated.” They killed the old DCM, but they failed to kill American marksmanship. The CMP survived—and the riflemen kept shooting.

Rep Claudia Tenney says the GOP needs to lean into Lincoln-era successes

by

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., argues DSA candidates are trying to ‘destroy’ the U.S. Constitution on ‘The Evening Edit.’ #fox #media #breakingnews #us #usa #new #news #breaking #foxbusiness #theeveningedit #claudiatenney #tenney #gop #republicans #dsa #democraticsocialists #constitution #usconstitution #politics #political #politicalnews #government #congress #newyork Subscribe to Fox Business: https://bit.ly/2D9Cdse Watch more Fox Business Video: https://video.foxbusiness.com Watch Fox …

Read more

The hands behind the presidential meat puppet.

by

The 25th Amendment is a pretty nifty constitutional tool because it answers the question of what would have happened if Jack Kennedy somehow survived Dallas.

The Constitution says: “Section Four: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Australia’s Thirty-Year Experiment in Turning Rights into Permissions

by

Australia’s latest firearm reforms raise a question that reaches far beyond guns: when does regulation become permission? Thirty years after the Port Arthur reforms, law-abiding Australians who followed every rule are discovering that Parliament can simply move the legal line beneath their feet. Yesterday’s registered property can become today’s prohibited property—not because the owner changed, but because the law did. Supporters call it public safety. Critics see a government that increasingly decides what citizens may own, what it’s worth, and under what conditions they must surrender it. The real debate isn’t over rifles. It’s over whether rights are inherent… or merely temporary permissions granted by the state.

When Elections Lose Legitimacy

by

The collapse of a republic rarely begins with tanks in the streets or dramatic constitutional crises. More often, it begins with a far quieter question: Can we trust our elections? Once citizens lose confidence in the process that grants political authority, every institution built upon that authority begins to crack. Courts become suspect, laws become negotiable, and political opponents become enemies. A nation can survive bitter policy disagreements. It cannot survive indefinitely if its citizens no longer believe their government derives its authority from legitimate elections.

Will The SAVE Act Save America?

by

My original intent was to write a short piece in favor of the SAVE Act. But exposure to the facts, generally missing from the debate, changed my mind. This effort led to a proposal to replace the SAVE Act, one that respects the wisdom of federalism, rejects one size fits all legislation, and recognizes the reality of legal challenges.

The Evergreen Tree: When a Pine Became a Warning Label for Tyrants

by

Long before Americans argued about flags on social media, our ancestors managed to make a tree politically dangerous. Britain reserved many of New England’s great white pines for the Royal Navy—even trees growing on colonial lands—marking them with the King’s Broad Arrow. The pine became a symbol of something much bigger: ownership, natural rights, independence, and the stubborn belief that free citizens had both the right and responsibility to defend their country. That’s why an evergreen ended up beneath the words “AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN.”

Tell Me What’s Wrong With Christian Nationalism

by
Flags-U.S. & Christian

We have millions of people living in the United States today who are not American citizens. They come from countless other nations, most of which do not share our morals or values. Many worship false — and violent — gods. Many follow false religions, and cults with radical ideologies. What’s even worse is that today, we have many government officials, leaders, and people in powerful positions of control that have no business being there, because they’ve never met the requirements for US Citizenship, they have contempt for our US Constitution and have no intention of ever assimilating to our culture.

Does the First Amendment Comes with a Racial Disclaimer?

by

If constitutional rights ever begin to depend on the race of the speaker rather than the content of the law, America will have crossed a dangerous line. The First Amendment was written to protect individuals—not identities. Justice must remain blind, because the moment she peeks beneath the blindfold to see who is standing before her, equal justice under law becomes little more than a slogan.

The CMP: America’s Quiet National-Security Insurance Policy

by

The Civilian Marksmanship Program is more than a shooting organization. It is a self-funded national-security asset that preserves firearms safety, competitive marksmanship, and a reserve of civilian expertise. During the Iraq War, CMP volunteers even traveled to military installations such as Fort Campbell to help the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit train deploying soldiers as Squad Designated Marksmen. What looks like recreation on Saturday can become battlefield capability when the nation needs it.

This is Part 2 of a 2-part analysis examining the phenomenon of Democratic Socialism

by

This is the second part of a two-part analysis that examines a specific historical claim: that the decades-long push of Democratic Socialists of America inside the Democrat Party follows the same “boring from within” logic the Bolsheviks used against the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks in 1917 — a small, disciplined vanguard using a broader coalition’s legitimacy and infrastructure to gain position, growing more candid about maximalist goals as it consolidates power, with no intention of remaining merely one faction among many.

574 Governments, Zero Consensus

by

The myth that America would magically function better with more political parties ignores one stubborn fact: more factions don’t automatically create more agreement. Look at the 574 federally recognized tribal governments. They don’t speak with one voice—and they shouldn’t be expected to. The 2022 renaming of 643 geographic features proved that even within Native communities, history, language, and culture are far more complex than Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions. Diversity of opinion is a strength, but pretending there’s only one “correct” voice is politics masquerading as consensus.

Squaw Bay: When Washington Rewrites Local History

by

In 2022, during the peak of America’s DEI-driven renaming campaign, Washington quietly rewrote more than 650 historic geographic names with the stroke of a pen. No vote in Alpena County. No referendum in Michigan. No debate in Congress. Just appointed federal officials deciding what generations of local residents should call their own landmarks. Whether you believe the name should stay or go isn’t the only question. The bigger one is this: Who gets to decide? If local history can be edited from a desk in Washington today, what piece of your community’s heritage gets rewritten tomorrow? It’s time to restore local control, preserve historical context, and remind the federal government that not every issue belongs in Washington.

America at 250: A History of Government Trying to Mute Free Speech

by

The First Amendment was ratified in 1791. Just seven years later, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, making it a crime to criticize the federal government. Since then, nearly every generation has been told that “this” crisis—war, communism, terrorism, or COVID—justifies limiting speech “for the greater good.” The slogans change. The excuses evolve. But one lesson has remained remarkably consistent for 250 years: governments don’t usually attack free speech head-on—they simply find a reason why yours should be the exception.

Forty Years of “P*** Christ:” The Shock That Changed America—But Not the Artist

by

Although “Piss Christ” never reached the Supreme Court, the controversy helped lead to the 1998 case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley. The Court ruled that while artists have broad First Amendment rights to create controversial work, they do not have a constitutional right to taxpayer funding. The lasting debate wasn’t whether Serrano could make the photograph—it was whether the public should have to help pay for it.