Category Archives: Action Item

SD State Computers & Education Offices Lobbying for Abortion

I received a call last evening from a very nice sounding lady. She was calling to ask me to join in a bus trip to Pierre to sit in on legislative activities as well as talk to our elected officials to promote certain legislation.

PAUSE! Promote legislation? I asked her ‘What legislation are you promoting?”

She beat around the bush, so I went back with a different tactic and said it would depend on the trucking schedule and if it would be a heavy dispatch day. She then gave me the website address for the registration form, but not until I gave her my list of the most important legislation I thought should be pushed for such as balanced budget, immigration & election reform.

Well, this afternoon I went to the website: StandUpSD dot org. Now, I haven’t been active in the abortion issue online and I am glad I didn’t let on to her my views in this area, because it was totally shocking to find out that:


Yep, you read that right. State offices, computers and personnel on OUR payroll are using state offices to conduct their business of promoting abortion as a health care issue & as a tool for contraception.

The Statists go to great lengths, even using every illegal tool in the book to promote the genocide of innocent children.

Early law commentaries that date immediately after the revolution specifically talk about killing of the unborn & infants as well as suicide and the unlawfullness of them all.

In “THE” very 1st commentary on American Law,1791 , Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote :

“Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.”


Let’s take Justice James Wilson’s words and use them AGAINST those who promote the genocide of God’s most precious gift.

The gift of ‘Human Life’



Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

I am so glad that the grandchildren are now home schooled, but it still does not totally eliminate the possibility of government intrusion into what content the parents may exclude from the curriculum.
This is a MUST read with follow-up calls to all our reps in DC. This rogue administration must be stopped and all the commie czars must be thrown back to the cesspool of corruption from whence they came.
Via FirstThings  aka former GatewayPundit:


Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily becausehe had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).


Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Continue here  for the complete disgusting breakdown of the Obama appointed & approved Safe Schools Czar’s agenda of what US Children are now to be taught in the classroom.

As Usual..Liberal Politco Scrubs Their Mistake: Calls Their Own Unscrupulious ACORN/SEIU Thugs, Conservative Tea Party Protesters: Correction in RED

In true liberal journalism, Politico US-PRAVDA Journalism has completely scrubbed clean their error in brashly claiming Tea Party Protesters were arrested this morning. Via FreeRepublic:

Tea partiers hit Capitol
Politico ^

Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:39:09 AM by Sub-Driver

Tea partiers hit Capitol By: Daniel Libit and Martin Kady II November 5, 2009 11:14 AM EST

Capitol Police arrested nine protesters Thursday morning in the Hart Senate office building as thousands of Tea Party activists descended on the Capitol building to protest the trillion dollar health care bill and government spending.

The gathering was organized by local Tea Party groups around the country, who are arriving in Washington this morning by the busload. Conservative leaders in Congress, led by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), have taken to the airwaves to encourage the activists to show up on the Capitol steps and demand meetings with members of Congress. The crowd is expected to grow into the thousands by noon, when Bachmann has promised to lead some protesters to a press conference inside the Capitol to express their opposition to the health care bill in person to members of Congress.

Speaking on conservative talker Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning, Bachmann encouraged people listening to show up on the West Front steps, but she said they should show up with “cameras” instead of “pitchforks.”

A Capitol Police spokeswoman confirmed to POLITICO that nine activists were arrested in the Hart building, and they are being processed at police headquarters. All the buildings in the Capitol complex remain open for now.

The protesters, who are occupying the patch of grass only a few yards from where Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, are chanting “you work for us!” Many are holding signs that echo their distrust of Obama and their belief that he is pursuing socialist policies.

(Excerpt)

Politico, in its truest form, jumped the gun and now when you click on the politico link, instead of correcting the error, Politico has completely re-written the article!

YEP…This is the kind of propaganda pushing PRAVDA/ALINSKY style journalism the Obama administration is wanting to bailout/take over next.

Here is who actually was arrestedACORN/SEIU Code Pinko  Thugs trying to take-over Lieberman’s office chanting, “people not profits, health care for all” & “health care is a human right, single payer health care for all”.

I will have the video of today’s rally on the Capital steps uploaded later. I am working on converting the video now. I believe the downloader caught almost all of it. There were a few snafoo’s due to streaming, but the sentiment is ALL There! Take to the phone lines and let us NOT give up this most important fight of our lives & our freedoms!

The U.S. Constitution Does “NOT” Authorize Congress To Force Americans To Buy Health Insurance

Being under the weather and feeling the pressure of supplying new material here at ConstitutionallySpeaking along with the pressure I am now feeling of getting everything on my Christmas list completed as I am also a quilter & seamstress, it helps when an article such as this comes along. Thanks to Publius Huldah of Canada Free Press  for all your hard work and due diligence in compiling this for us.

I now CHALLENGE ALL my readers to copy and send this to ALL your US Senators & Reps in DC as well as your state Senators & Reps.

Constitution‘General Welfare’ Clause: Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

By Publius Huldah  Friday, October 23, 2009 recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”.  In the article, Steny Hoyer(Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

Oh my!  Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”!  As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers  only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause:  Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief—on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?  Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41  (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83  (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

5. And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government?  In Federalist No. 45  (9th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39  (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14  (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27  (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, we can understand the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

7. So!  How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition:  During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages!  So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution:  FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

Roger Pilon  of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People.  The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution!(But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO!  Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16,  next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “..the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49,  3rd Para).

Folks! Your duty is clear:  Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.

My reply to Senator Johnson. I am still waiting for one from a similar letter sent a few weeks ago now that also pointed out the Federalist Papers, the Framers & early SCOTUS decisions.

Dear Senator Johnson,

I am still waiting for that reply to my previous constitutional questions sent to you regarding all the unconstitutional legislation that you and those on the left in Congress are trying to shove down our throats.

And while I do respect the office you serve, I can not and will not support your actions since getting re-elected and the following is why.

Please dear Sir, take some time to reflect on your position as a “PUBLIC SERVANT” to those whom you represent and the limitations of your office. You are treading on treacherous ground and ‘We the People’ are tired of you turning your back on us.

A Question on Reconciliation

I have been reading the Budget Reconciliation Rules and as far as I can see, there are absolutely no stipulations allowing this process to be used to implement new entitlement programs. However, on the contrary, there are specific rules that is to be used ONLY for current programs, which programs it may be used for and which ones it may not be used for. It also stipulates that all legislation MUST be deficit neutral. The rules also are very specific that this process is for budget purposes only.

So my questions to Senator Johnson & Congressman Herseth-Sandlin are, “by what authority do you have to pass a new entilement program through a budget process? Will you please show me, in these rules that you swore an oath to follow, where it states that this process may be used to pass a brand new ‘Mandated Orwellian Socialistic Health Redistribution Program’?”


house committee rules logo


“The 1981 reconciliation bill, which encompassed legislative language from thirteen different committees in response to savings instructions mandated by the Senate, produced a legislative result that would have been impossible to achieve if each committee had reported an individual bill on subject matter solely within its own jurisdiction. By using a procedure that permitted packaging of the savings, Congress was able to consider President Reagan’s economic program as a whole, resistant to the type of special interest pressures that would have scuttled the savings if they had been proposed in piecemeal fashion.”
– Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr., then Senate Majority Leader (Winter, 1983) 

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction. The reconciliation process is an optional procedure and not a required action by Congress every fiscal year as is passage of the concurrent budget resolution. However, during the eighteen year period from 1980 to 1998 thirteen reconciliation measures have been enacted into law and numerous others have been considered by Congress. Occasionally, reconciliation legislation has included certain such enforcement mechanisms as extensions of the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements or even reforms to the budget process. Whether for tax reduction, tax increases, deficit reduction, mandatory spending increases or decreases or adjustments in the public debt limit, this process has been used to focus many agents on one goal. 
Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees. 
Budget Committees’ Role: Once the relevant authorizing committees have reported their legislation to the Budget Committees, it is the Budget Committees’ responsibility to combine those bills into an omnibus package (or packages) as specified by the budget resolution. The legislative products of the authorizing committees are packaged together with report language and the Congressional Budget Office’s and the Joint Committee on Taxation’s cost estimates. This function of the Budget Committees is largely administrative, since the Budget Act provides that the Budget Committees may not make substantive changes in the legislation. However, if one or more authorizing committees do not meet these targets, certain procedures are used to bring the legislation into compliance. In the House, these legislative “fixes” are usually incorporated into the reconciliation package via a special rule granted by the Rules Committee. In the Senate, these violations of the reconciliation instructions may be remedied through the adoption of an amendment on the Senate floor or the adoption of a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment containing legislative language which satisfies the original instruction. 
House and Senate Floor Consideration: The Budget Act specifies that Congressional Action on reconciliation legislation should be completed by June 15. It provides specific expedited procedures and restrictions for floor consideration of reconciliation measures, to ensure timely completion. In the House, reconciliation legislation is normally brought from the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee, which grants a special rule governing floor consideration of the measure. Under the Budget Act and traditionally under these special rules no amendment is in order that would increase spending or decrease revenue levels relative to the base bill without equivalent decreases in spending or increases in revenues. In other words, amendments must be deficit neutral. Also, non-germane amendments may not be offered to the package absent a waiver from the Rules Committee.
In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the “Byrd Rule”, provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor. 
Conference Process: Once a reconciliation bill is passed in the House and Senate, members of each body meet to work out their differences. A majority of the conferees on each panel must agree on a single version of the bill before it can be brought back to the full House and Senate for a vote on final passage. Approval of the conference agreement on the reconciliation legislation must be by a majority vote of both Houses. In the House, the conference report is usually given a special rule from the Rules Committee to govern floor consideration. In the Senate, the floor debate is governed by Senate rules and specific provisions of the Budget Act. In contrast to the concurrent budget resolution, a reconciliation bill is sent to the President for approval or disapproval.


Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord: UPDATED

obamamoses The Obama cult is finally come ‘out of the closet’. WOW, that only took 8 months.

As I originally reported back in February, I have had an ill feeling since last summer and Obama’s world ‘presidential’ campaign where he gave his ‘global citizen’ speech in Germany.

His constant spewing, that we all must become “global citizens” in his agenda to “re-make America” and save the world, sent shivers down my spine and into full throttle mode digging for information on this enigma that had swept so many citizens off their feet like they were at a “Jim Jones revival”.

 As I watched the following video I wondered, is this a sign from God of his return? A prominent sign that it is time to get our house/country in order? Is this a message to us, like it was to the Israelites, after Moses descended from Mt. Sinai to find that many of God’s chosen people had fallen to the prey of false prophets? God’s chosen people worshipping false gods & idols?

  • 1st ascension: The next Sunday is Pentecost and Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (1st) and returns with the first installment of the law (Ex 19:3-6). He returns to the camp and asks the people if they will keep the law. The people reply yes. This is not the ten commandments, but other Laws of God. It must be disheartening for Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers, to learn that the Ten Commandments were not even given to Moses until after he had ascended the mountain the 6th time and after spending 40 days after the 6th ascension. Apparently the statues of the law were more important than the 10 commandments. The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week (Saturday). The first time in history anyone kept the Sabbath is in the Wilderness of Sin. The word Sabbath is not even found in the Book of Genesis. The weekly Sabbath was abolished and nailed to the cross. Col 2:14-16 On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.
  • 2nd ascension: On Monday, Moses ascends Mt. Sinai (2nd) to give God the people’s “yes” answer. God says to be ready on the third day (Wednesday) when he will descend on the Mountain in fire: Ex 19:7-14. The people are told to walk to the base of the mountain from their camp and be ready for God’s coming. God tells Moses to set up boundaries around the mountain so the people cannot break through, climb the mountain and die.
  • As the Israelites waited as instructed the third day, for God to descend on Mt. Sinai, they suddenly looked due north 100 km and saw God in the wilderness of Paran. God “dawns from Seir” like a sunrise in its glory, until He is hovering directly over Mt. Sinai. The Israelites watched in wonder and were amazed at the beauty and splendor of God as He came closer and closer to them where they stood. One of the most interesting facts about the Wilderness of Paran, is its connection with God’s appearing at Mt. Sinai. When Israel was encamped at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Mt. Al-Lawz), God thundered, in a volcanic level display that terrified the Israelites. But three verses explicitly tell us that God dawned from the north like a sunrise, or like Elijah’s small cloud the size of a man’s fist in the distance that became a storm (1 Kings 18:44). God dawned from Mt. Seir until he came to Mt. Sinai and made the mountain turn to fire before Israel. They were terrified. The four key verses that describe “dawning from the north” are: Deut 33:2; Isa 63:1-2; Judg 5:4; Hab 3:3-7. 40 years later, when Israel was at Mt. Seir, God gave the “go ahead” to finally start their way to the promised land by the command, “Now turn North”. In fact Mount Seir is absolute due south of Jerusalem and absolute due north of Mt. Sinai in modern Saudi Arabia. There are several passages that repeat this pattern of God coming “from the North”. Most notably is Ezekiel’s vision where God came from a distant storm in the North finally to overshadow him. (Ezekiel 1:4) Job describes God as coming from the North in golden splendor. (Job 37:22-23) Lucifer, the king of Babylon describes God’s throne as being in the far north. (Isaiah 14:13-14) Psalm 48:1-2 describes Jerusalem as being located in the “far north”. Further detailed study. After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20 God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21
  • 3rd ascension: After God descends on Mt. Sinai and calls Moses to climb the mountain (3rd). Ex 19:20
  • 4th ascension: God tells Moses to go back down and warn the people again to stay away from the mountain so they will not die, then come up again (4th) with Aaron. Ex 19:21
  • Moses and Aaron hear the Ten Commandments andvarious other laws. God tells Moses to descend andreturn with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. Moses goes back down and tells the people what God has said. Deut 24:1-3
  • Moses writes down the words in the book of the law, which will eventually be placed on the side of the ark. Ex 24:4
  • Moses builds an alter with 12 pillars at the foot of the mountain for the twelve tribes. He then sprinkles the alter with blood. Ex 24:4-6
  • Moses read the book of the law to the people and after they agreed, he sprinkled the people with blood of the covenant. Ex 24:8 Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11
  • 5th ascension: Moses now returns to the mountain (5th) with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel. After seeing God andeating the group descend to the foot of the mountain. Ex 24:9-11
  • God then calls Moses up with Joshua to the mountain to receive the two tablets of stone with the ten commandments written by the finger of God. Ex 24:12 Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.
  • 6th ascension: Moses spends 40 days on the mountain (6th) where God reveals the plan for the tabernacle. Ex 24:18.
  • After 40 days, Aaron makes the golden calf as Moses was on the mountain for 40 days. In one of the most fascinating interaction between a man and God in the Bible, God tells Moses He will kill all the Hebrews who sinned and make Moses into a great nation. Moses pleads for the people. Then God changes his mind and says he won’t kill them. Moses goes down and rebukes Aaron and grinds up the golden calf and makes them drink the gold dust. Then Moses command the Levites to kill about 3000 of the idol worshippers. Ex 32:7-29 The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35
  • 7th ascension: The next day, Moses climb Mt. Sinai (7th). God tells Moses is to take them into the promised land with God’s angel as protection, but God himself will not go with them. Moses goes down the mountain. God strikes down a number of the Hebrews who sinned. Ex 32:30-35
  • When the people hear that God’s angel will lead them but God himself will not go with them, the people get sad and they remove all their jewelry. Ex 33:2-6
  • Moses continues to plead with God for the people and says, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” God says He will show Moses his Glory on the Mountain. Ex 33:18-23 God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.
  • 8th ascension: God tells Moses to cut out two replacement tablets and God calls Moses back up to Mt. Sinai (8th), where God passes by while Moses was in the cleft of the rock. Again Moses asks God to join them on the journey to the promised land. God changes his mind finally and tells Moses he will lead them to the promised land. Moses spends forty more days on the mountain, then returns. God said he would perform new miracles and Moses face is shining in view of the people so he puts a veil over his face. Ex 34:1-9; 2 Cor 3.
  • Our blessed America that was founded by men who revered the word of God. These men knew of the tyranny of false prophets. They knew of the history of a nation falling into the prey of these false prophets and the immorality that they preached.

    Oh, Hear Our Prayer, Oh Lord

    UPDATE: WND has reported some interesting bacground information of the Chicago-based community organizing group called the Gamaliel Foundation :

    Officials with the Gamaliel Foundation did not return a message left by WND requesting a comment.

    But according to the organization’s website, its type of community organizing began in Chicago in 1938.

    Saul Alinsky created the ‘Back of the Yards Community Council,'” the site says. “The organization operated in the shadow of Chicago’s stock yards. The community was beset with poverty, political corruption, gangs, disease, deteriorating housing and inadequate schools; but most of all it was beset with a sense of powerlessness. The organization successfully engaged people to change the conditions of the community.”

    The foundation says it was set up in 1968 to support “an African American organization fighting to protect homeowners on Chicago’s Westside who had been discriminated against by banks and saving and loan institutions.”

    It was relaunched in 1986 “as an organizing institute.”

    Others, such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, also have been clear in their nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

    CLICK for the entire articel at WND.

    As Goes the Postal Service, So Will Your Government Run Health Care

    BUYER BEWARE! I just received this in my e-mail updates from ShipperNet/CarrierNet Group Financial:


    Due to the delivery time changes we need everyone who sends their invoices in via the Postal system to send them to our P.O. box this includes express as well as priority and regular mail.

    Our local post office has had to put the delivery of our mail back due to loss of employees and they are not going to be replacing them.

    So going forward sent ALL invoices to

    Carriernet Group Financial Inc.

    P.O. Box 1130

    Sioux Falls, SD  57104-1130

    If you send your invoices by Fed-Ex or UPS you can send them to our regular address since they cannot send to a po box.  If you have any questions please give us a call.

    Thank You



    This is ‘NOT” going to build confidence for further government run programs/entitlements.

    Is This Illegal? You Decide…UPDATED ALREADY: Newsbusters BUSTED!!!


    The entry previously posted at this address incorrectly asserted that the Capitol Hill switchboard was being used to promote liberal health insurance legislation. It is not being used for that purpose.

    The telephone number referenced in this post originally is owned by a liberal lobbying organization, not the U.S. Capitol switchboard. We regret the error.


    Of course they deleted the original message:


    This is the main phone line representing ALL of Congress.  I repeat, this is the phone number for ALL of Congress, not an activist’s number to sell Obama, Socialist Democrats and their policies.

    While it lasts, try it yourself and you’ll see.  The number is 1-800-828-0498.

    Here is the transcript of the message you’ll hear:

    Thank you for calling your Representative and your Senators.

    Please urge them to vote yes on health insurance reform. Because the American people can no longer wait for more choices, lower costs, and coverage we can count on.

    Will ALL of the mainstream media report this? My bet is on ‘NOT’. Time to fire up those e-mails & phone lines tomorrow Patriots!

     More info on the origins of the recording:


    September 27, 2009 – 10:21 ET by P.J. Gladnick : The recording is by FamiliesUSA which makes it sound like you have called Capitol Hill by thanking the caller for calling their representative. Then it  automatically forwards the caller to Capitol Hill switchboard. Not sure how ethical that is but recording originates from FamiliesUSA, a pro-ObamaCare organization. No mention in the recorded message about FamiliesUSA at all.

    Sounds like impersonation of a Capitol Hill switchboard.

    And more from the Examiner:

    The United States Capitol does not have a toll free number.  There is only one main number to the Capitol – 202-226-8000.  It can easily be found on their website.  My sources say that there is nothing the Capitol can do about this.  Apparently anyone can use a private number and forward it to wherever they like.  Organizations that are legitimate are posting this number on their sites as if the number is a true number held by the Capitol.  There are over 500,000 hits for that number in Google alone.

    FamiliesUSA promotes this number:

    “Liberty is to Faction What Air is to Fire” James Madison, 1787

    Today is Constitution Day. It was on this day, September 17, 1787, that the Constitution emerged for the first time from the convention in Philadelphia, Pa. Our blessed Constitution that was written not by men of all the same political faction, however, a coalition of men of many political factions, working together to “Form A More Perfect Union” and it was up to ‘We the People” to ensure its long lasting existence.

    Fast forward 222 years…

    When political factions collide, there is bound to be discontent of some sort on one side or the other. Political factions also can be very dangerous to liberty if abused such as they are today. However, given time, the oppressing faction will soon be diminished in numbers if true liberty is let to run its natural course.

    The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that the framers published in newspapers across the colonies, are the blue print to the Constitution. Hamilton & Madison wrote extensively on divide between political factions and the need for them to ensure liberty under the Constitutional Republic. In Federalist #10, Madison gives us a ‘right in your face’ clue as to the importance of keeping one political faction from taking over another:

    “By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united in and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…

    …Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires…

    …As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.”

    Today, the debate between the divides is at a critical crossroads. On one side, we have the progressive/socialist faction; who are seeking to extinguish the flame of liberty of the conservatives. Helping the socialistic faction are those in the middle who are content to remain oblivious until the day, they too, will wake up to liberties lost.

    To wake up the sleeping centrists, we must turn to education. The education of our history and how the wheels of liberty are suppose to be turning in Washington.

    For this we shall start back in 1772. 

    On November 20, 1772 in Boston, Ma., the colonists ratified the very first ‘Rights of the Colonists’. In correspondence to the Monarchy in Great Britain, the colonists also included a laundry list of violations of their individual rights. Reading the list of violations is like reading the laundry list of violations of the Declaration of Independence. This is no coincidence. I believe the original “Rights of the Colonists’ paved the way to the Revolution.

    Here are a few snippets from that fateful correspondence:

    “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule… 

    …It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it on the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of all civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave…

    …The absolute rights of all free men, in or out of Civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty and private property…

    …The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.”

    I could go on further, however, I leave you with the link for further reading. This was absolutely mind blowing to me to see in written word, several years before the revolution that the seeds of independence were sprouting amongst the colonists. The similarities of what happened those 237 years ago, when the colonists first wrote to Great Britain, to what is happening today is nothing short of a shout out to Americans today of what will come if we do not get the governments in our states and in DC under control and off the path of tyranny.

    Returning back to the Federalist Papers, we again see the correlation of then and now when Madison speaks out in essay #84 of the dangers of an all intrusive central government into the most personal aspects of our lives.

    “It is evident therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations, ‘We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, so ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America… 

    … a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns…

    …There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS… 

    …This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of the bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to in a variety of cases in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not found in the work of the convention.”

    Indeed, a limited government that has no power to circumvent the natural rights of man by passing legislation that would assume control over the most private aspects of our lives. I ask, is not the control over our physical well being not the most personal and private aspect of our God given inalienable rights? Where is it in the enumerated rights of Congress listed in Article I of the Constitution, that “We the People” gave up our right to make the most personal decisions of our lives? Was there an amendment passed that we do not know about?

    What is happening today is nothing short of tyranny, however, the progressive / socialists try to pass it off as liberty. To them, liberty through tyranny is acceptable; because in their minds, they truly believe, they are liberating us from what they have now deemed an undue financial burden which ironically was created by none other than themselves, our elected representatives.

    These representatives use trickery with words in which the founding fathers frequently refer to as ‘mischief’. They use lobbyists and lawyers to write legislation that is so obscenely obtrusive and of gigantic length to hide from the public, and themselves, the true dastardly ramifications of its contents. This problem is not limited to the progressive/socialistic faction; the so-called conservatives are just as guilty when it comes to kowtowing to political lobbyists.

    In Federalist # 62, Hamilton calls out this problem of allowing such obscure and lengthy legislation to be passed.

    “It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust…

    …The eternal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they can not be read, or so incoherent that they can not be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or under go such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” 

    What else did the founding fathers have to say of the contents of such tyrannical legislation you ask? What of the effects of legislation that excludes certain body politic from having to comply? 

    Again, Madison expounds on the tendency of the elected few to elevate themselves at the expense of the masses. 

    “I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will have not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” 

    Never has it been more true than today, that we can unequivocally say that political elitists have usurped their duty to represent ‘WE the PEOPLE’. They were elected on false pretense and have now been exposed.

    They are working to reduce our God given physical beings into nothing more than chattel. To them we are just another commodity to regulate for their own personal political and financial gain. 

    If such Orwellian legislation with mandates into the most intimate aspect of our personal lives passes, they shall have achieved the ultimate tyranny against God’s free people.


    2 Peter 2:18-20 (King James Version)  ~  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

    “We Are Taking Our Country Back”

    A 9~12 message from Glenn Beck

    Patrick Henry’s Peaceful Dissent

    Those who were once united by the “Spirit of ’76,” or the Revolutionary generation, were not necessarily united in supporting the Constitution in 1787-88. We need only look to the state ratification debates to see the diversity of opinions regarding the new plan of government among faithful and once-united patriots. Acceptance of the Constitution was anything but a foregone conclusion.

    Virginia patriot Patrick Henry, famous for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech which prompted Virginia (and eventually her sister states) to join besieged Massachusetts in the cause of independence, was one such devout Anti-Federalists, or one who opposed the new Constitution. His voice was often heard (and feared by Federalists) during the Virginia ratification debates.

    Patrick Henry’s objections were not unfounded. After fighting off a British superpower, he feared a large national government with no declaration of rights to limit its power. He warned that if Virginia ratified, “the Republic may be lost forever,” and subsequently demanded to know “what right had [the delegates at Philadelphia] to say, We, the People.”

    As the Virginia convention drew near a final vote on ratification, Henry stood to deliver his most impassioned soliloquy against the Constitution. He condemned an affirmative vote by saying it would negatively impact not just the fledging United States, but countries and even generations yet unborn but nonetheless present in the convention hall with the delegates in ethereal form.

    When I see beyond the horrison [sic.] that binds human eyes,” Henry began, “and look at the final consummation of all human things…I am led to believe that much of the account on one side or the other, will depend on what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event-All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its adoption may involve the misery of the other hemispheres…”

    Just as Henry finished his speech, a storm suddenly arose which combined with Henry’s rhetorical weaponry to have an eerie affect on his listeners. His final words were punctuated by thunder and lightning which “shook the whole building.”

    Without calling for adjournment, the delegates—including such distinguished figures as George Washington, Governor Edmund Randolph, George Mason, James Monroe and James Madison—fled the convention hall. One listener explained why: “the spirits whom [Henry] had called, seemed to have come at his bidding.” Moreover, “[Henry] seemed to mix in the fight of his aetherial auxiliaries, and ‘rising on the wings of the tempest, to seize upon the artillery of Heaven, and direct its fiercest thunders against the heads of his adversaries.’”

    Yet in spite of his vehement opposition, Patrick Henry demonstrated his commitment to the democratic process. Shortly after the Virginia Ratification Convention, he was approached by his Anti-Federalist colleagues to head a guerilla war against the ratified Constitution. Instead of continuing to oppose the Constitution outright, he declared “I will be a peaceable citizen.”

    And he was. While Henry disagreed with some aspects of the new government, he also recognized that the Constitution left his head, hand, and heart free to advocate change “in a constitutional way.” He accepted the choice made by the American people and advocated for change within the system they had chosen. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, he ensured Virginia’s two U.S. Senators were Anti-Federalists, paving the way for the passage of the Bill of Rights.

    ConSource logo