This has been long coming for reasons I don't know. Possibly because the court was too liberal in the past to allow for a ruling which would actually protect that natural right. For those who thought Bork nomination in the 80s was a good choice I believe that he would have voted against this decision. Bork had many liberal critics but some conservatives also didn't like some of his stances. I for one didn't think he was good enough for the court. He wouldn't compare to someone such as Justice Roy Moore.

I'm posting some quotes from the document with Justice Scalia had written. This document is 157 pages long.

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” .... Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service.

‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.”

if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.

It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia.

A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”

========End of Quotes========

The above quotes are ones which I found interesting thus far reading the document. It appears to me that we'll have something to cellebrate this Unanimous Declaration of Dependance Day.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness."

To finally add a supporting text of my own here's what I have...

Luke 22:36-38

"36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough"

p.s. I have more than two.

Have a blessed day!

The man was awakened by the police at 3:00AM in the morning to inform him his doors were unlocked!

Many people, after reading this story, will think of this situation as an "unsafe" issue and that there should be penalties against this man for how he was living inside his own home. I would say absolutely not. There is nothing illegal (unless you want to make an unlocked home being illegal) about letting kids to stay up watching the television while you go to bed. This is a parenting preference which may be up for public ridicule in conversation but that is about it.

I believe the police had no right to enter this man's property and had violated this man's private property rights. I've left my garage door open from time to time over night because I had not checked it prior to going to bed, so what? Do I deserve a citation and then have fliers sent to my neighbors attempting to justifying a police act which violates property and privacy?

Our government has become a nanny state and it is because of people who can't keep there noses out of other poeples' lives that these things become political. Shame on the state of Minnesota and the people there who don't know what freedom is about.

So, I ask what is it you want the state to do for you. Do you want to have them come and check your doors for you too or maybe tuck you in for the night?

There are many things which we see others do which may seem to be a risk if we were to do them. Many of these things are simply choices and preferences and should not be punishable. This issue may be brought up as an example for the police to have the right to enter peoples homes for little to no reasons. I had seen this on the news and then debated by the three "talking heads" for fifteen seconds with two of the three people in favor of the wake up call by the police. AARRGGG!!

Lets get down to what freedom really is, I would say that freedom is the ability to live our lives as we choose even to the point of self destruction. We as a people have to be responsible, and self reliant. Many politicians  think they are the wisest of people and want to run other peoples lives. There are many activities because of safety which we are restricted from doing because others are not even able to imagine doing. In this case I believe the police went over the line.

Can you give us examples which you see to be none issues yet there are state laws which seem to violate personal, parental, property or church rights?  If you can't then you're most likely desiring that this man gets  a fine or even thrown in jail.

Have a blessed day.

This is incredible. This killing is so barbaric that you have to really say where does the evil in man's heart stop? To what depth of wickedness can man venture? The idea that Mr. Mugabe can sit there and claim some sort of leadership over this nation of thugs is just incredible. There is a run off election later this month, so of course Mugabe's door to door workers (militia) are looking to deter votes and win (force) others before election day. Zimbabwe is worse off now than it was when we knew it as Rhodesia.

I didn't realize this but Ian Smith had passed away just last November, 2007.

As for leaders speaking out against Mugabe, where's Africa's leader Mandela? My guess is that these types of killings are right up Mandela's alley too. Mandela's excuse for not chastising Mugabe and his thugs is that he's just too old. Well, Mandela didn't speak against the necklace's which his old wife (Winnie) favored for their oppositions in the old apartheid days. Mandela chose violence just the same as Mugabe prefers.

Again, we see the character of this regime and its thugs revealed and the leaders of old who were just as bad and can't say anything probably because of that LOG in their own eye. What religion is Mugabe? Well he's a devout Catholic and so what's Rome's thoughts about Mugabe? Hasn't Mugabe learned in the Roman Catholic church the doctrine of salvation is salvation by "good" works not BAD works? He apparently has not been setting a good Christian example for his followers. Neither did Hitler, though he wasn't a Christian either.

You shall know them by their fruits. And we have a presidential candidate with ties to this kind of thugary with a father and also a cousin Odinga in Kenya whom Obama has gone to support with his presence.  How did Odinga get his Prime Minister seat of power in Kenya when he had lost the election? Through threats of violence and also with our U.S. State department arm twisting. (Shame on us). Will Obama make it a violent racial issue in America IF he looses the presidential bid? I fear that his 20 years of liberation theology church teachings seem to lean in that same direction.

THE REVOLUTION, by Ron Paul.

The NY Times best seller list for the last five weeks has had "The Revolution", written by Ron Paul on their "Hardcover Nonfiction" list.

****Edited 6/21/2008**** Eight weeks now.

Here are some quotes....

"My message is one of freedom and individual rights. I believe individuals have a right to life and liberty and that physical aggression should be used only defensively."

"Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist.....The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.....(rather than) by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns."(emphasis mine)

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies"

Enjoy your freedoms. But even more importantly defend them!

Have a blessed day.

Why is it we have such negative thoughts of our economy? Is it because of inflation taking hold? Prices rising while no one seems to know why? Do we expect 'socialism' with its government bailouts, welfare, and tax time rebates to turn things around for 'We the People'? There were other ways.

We drift away from our Christian roots and at the same time we see our free market being threatened with over regulation and political ideas (via Obama and company) rooted in communism about to set policy in the land (McCain doesn't have the answers either). What use is our Constitution anyway? Plundering will evolve from the lack of Christian character in our society, from the poorest consumer to the 'millionaire' entrepreneur.

Here is a great post with replies about the 'Christian Commerce'. Read it and think of where we need to return to in order for our economy and government to be free and non-plundering.

Go here and read about 'Christian Commerce'.

"Christianity will teach the nations to move from weapons to tools in order to get gain. Such an emphasis upon what may be called “Christian commerce” is
incorporated in one concept with several key traits. “Christian
commerce” can be defined as the peculiar approach to money, trade and
productivity which Christian virtue brings to the community."

Have a blessed day in the market!!! If your allowed to that is.

This is a request for all to go out this next week or two and
see the movie/documentary titled:

"EXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed"

The writers and producers of this documentary desire to crack the wall which blocks the right of inquiry in the science community. See what is happening to scientists inquiring into the ideas of Intelligent Design presupposition. Is there a struggle of scientific ideas and theory or could there be a world view philosophy which has a strangle hold on the tongues and minds of scientists?

You really must see this film.

Let me know what you think about the idea of freedom to inquire. Is the science community up to no good? And what do you think this film's impact will be, if any?

We as a people have lost our way. The atheists "think" they need neutrality in government for a free nation. Instead it is the Christian virtue of the people which retain the freedoms in government and the culture. Atheism is a ruse to make America exist without absolutes, no standard of right and wrong. They're desire is a government of force to extinguish all religions. As the church diminishes from truth and God's law, so does our freedoms become less and less. We will become a lawless society with anarchy on the horizon.

Both political parties have  standards, the Democrats had no standards and seek to destroy the constitution and individualism. The Republicans seek to just ignore the constitution because it prevents them from ruling other nations by war. They both desire to extinguish the church but the church seems to be doing that quite well by itself.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."  James Madison 4th President comment on the American political system.

(Not Allah, not Buddha, and certainly not the great cave that gave birth to earth.)

So how many of the U.S. citizens are anti Constitution? I would gather anyone who supports Obama is an anti-Constitutionalist.

Sen. Obama has been declared to be the most leftist/liberal Senator in political office.

To say the least, he's a leftist socialist to the core and should not be blessed with our vote as President of this U.S. of America.

If you're for reparations which is money or benefits paid only to descendants of slaves then you agree with Obama. But I say, let not the wrongs of the past hinder our future by committing another wrong. Let not the sins of the past be paid for by those in the present to those who had not suffered from those sins in the past. These ideas are simply means to cause more divisiveness to be injected into our country by those who seek to destroy it.

**Edited**(3-31-08): As it stands now it is apparent to me that Obama would propose to the Americans a plan of educational reparations to at least two generations of black Americans. Tell me I'm wrong.

If you desire the government to get into controlling the wages and salaries of corporations then Obama is your fascist dream come true.

If you're taxes are not high enough then Obama will be your man, he will be raising them.

If you want to bail out via your tax money people in situations such as the sub-prime borrowers and lenders making bad decisions, then Obama is your man. I'm sure this will not encourage future borrowers and lenders not to make these same kind of mistakes?

If you desire more United Nations involvement with the U.S.A. then Obama is your man. Wouldn't you just love to pay a U.N. tax on goods?

If you desire a National Health Care program to destroy the world's best health industry then Obama is your man. Get ready for a another mysterious Federal Reserve, but in this case it will be rather the Federal Health Reserve Board. It will be there to make the those big decisions for you that you use to make for yourself.

If you think I will defend any statements against Obama then think again it's really not needed. What is needed is to protect and uphold the Constitution which Obama will most assuredly talk around, walk all over and violate instead. We should be voting for persons who will abide by the governing principles and restrictions put forth in the U. S.Constitution.

Obama will not protect the unborn, he even voted against the ban of partial birth abortion, what an atrocity! If Obams will not protect that Life which is so close to seeing the light of day then what makes one think he would diligently protect Liberty or the right to  pursue Happiness.

He will be more than happy to sign into law more gun control bills. That which is a Constitutional right he seems to want to deny, yet he will seek to guarantee you health care which is not a Constitutional right. National Health care is a communist ideal. Taking from the haves and give to the have-not. Our Constitution was/is not meant to be a conduit for benevolence nor used to be the "force" behind the redistribution of wealth or health.

If you want to bring under federal jurisdiction more "state issues" about morality and personal liberties, then Obama is your man. You will have more federal cases or issues which should be left alone to the states. Should the boy scouts be forced to accept homosexuals into their organizations? If so then you will love Obama and you will also have to change the name of "pup" tents to something else.  The hate crimes or thought control bills will also be expanded.

Anyone willing to defend the truth about Obama's personal life may go ahead,  but I will most assuredly not defend him to be a President of these United States.

If you think I'm saying all this for the benefit of Hillary think again I'm not on her side either!

I would only hope we all would see the wrongfulness of a character such as Obama to be in the U.S. Presidential office.

Now if you think of the "Core Liberal" you might think of someone who is an ardent follower and supporter of the liberals in power. One who may have some or maybe a few not so liberal ideas. In the case of Senator Obama, he is viewed by me to be "Liberal to the Core". He is about as liberal as one can possibly get in all areas of governance. This is why he has attracted so many followers of moderates and liberals, he supports all of their anti-Constitutional thoughts.

I voted for Ron Paul, the only true Constitutionalist, preserver of our freedoms and of our American culture.

A so called conservative pundit says he's fearfull of the conservatives
who will not support McCain. He went on to state, "The alternative is
too destructive to consider and amounts to political suicide. Not
voting and constantly attacking the nominee, instead of finding common
ground, will guarantee a national nightmare of liberal policies under
Hillary or Obama, policies that will be pro-abortion, pro-homosexual
rights and anti-military; policies that will lead to defeat, bigger
government, more spending and higher taxes." - G. Bauer

Is he serious! Too destructive, our votes will be too destructive? I
think it has been the destructive nature of the "pundits" of this
country who have let down the true conservatives. Most pundits have
done just the opposite to other more conservative candidates which we
would have favored. Now we're told to "Oh please reach out to McCain,
strengthen him?, improve him?" You've got to be kidding us! Why should
we abide to the preferences of the media pundits? Excusing themselves
and then accuse the rest of us voters for letting Obama into the white
house if we don't toe the Republican line. Why would I want to stain my
vote by voting for McCain and give him some sort of false mandate from
the people for his policies such as 100 years in Iraq.

What the pundits (Belling, Miller, Medved, Ingraham, Malkin, Bauer,
Hannity, ABC, CNN, MSNBC,Faux, Beck, just to name a few.) have done is
arrogantly ridiculed rather than reached out to real conservatives and
find "common ground". They sought mediocrity and unconstitutional
programs. Instead of instructional information about candidates for the
public to decide they became untruthful, disrespectful. They withheld
information, misrepresented and defamed candidate's positions until it
was too late. Problem is the pundits have now character assassinated
all of the best candidates in front of both political isles. Ron Paul
was the only true conservative and most pundits have pelted him with
verbal darts across the web and airwaves. This gave false impressions
to potential supporters. Paul really would have made use of your support
through your so called "improvement and strengthening." It's funny how
we as voters have to do that and the pundits do not. Now who do we have?
McCain, and I stated way before last fall that if McCain is the nominee
he'll not be getting my vote.

Ron Paul was even betrayed by the homeschooler HSLDA organization for
Huckabee! That was so disheartening as a homeschooling family for Ron
Paul!!! Huckabee sought restrictions upon homeschoolers in his state.
Whereas, Ron Paul understood and was 100% for homeschoolers.

The McCain railroad is fueled by the moderates and liberals. If he gets
in then the Republican party has taken another shift to the left thanks
to the pundits and the MSM's lip service to our Constitution. Did
everyone see the new Republican leaders appointed by MSM for the
Republican party; absurd Guiliani, mean McCain, and social leftist Gov.
Schwarzenegger? The rest of the Constitutionalists and conservatives
have no one left to turn to who will represent them, instead of just
desiring their votes. So, we may as well head into another direction
with a third party because it appears to be a systemic problem within
the Republican party. The republican and democratic party can be the
left wing and we'll form a new principled party.

You can't blame it on the voters, its the moderates and shallow pundits
not understanding the constitution who have destroyed the opportunity
of a conservative to unit the party. Ron Paul was rallying all sorts of
people, Dems, Rep, liberal, conservative, new voters, old, young. They
could have joined in but it was not their desire. Ron Paul's message
was one of Freedom! The list of pundits missed it, but they were not
alone. He would have been a great conservative answer for even the Dems
may have voted for because of his stance against the unconstitutional
war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Did you see that Ron Paul in the last
quarter again received the most donations from the military? More than
all the other candidates combined!

Please don't tell me that I have to go reach out to McCain to
strengthen him and improve him? What ever that means. That's silly, we
need someone in office who would lead and do what is right. I didn't
want a McCain, Feingold, Lieberman, Kennedy compromiser in office. Here
comes amnesty for the illegals!

The media's defamation of character should be penalized!

A quote from President Jefferson who was for the freedom of the press,
also thought that they needed to be reined in because of their bias,
bigotry, libel and defamation. See this quote from his second inaugural
address: "During the discourse of administration, and in order to
disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us,
charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These
abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply
to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to
sap its safety.  They might, indeed, have been corrected by the
wholesome punishments reserved to and provided by the laws of the
several states against falsehood and defamation."

It is just too bad that the cost upon those who would and should level
charges is such that it is a death penalty due to loss of time, money
and resources!

McCain is not presidential material. His demeanor (temper), policies,
and lies should not be allowed in our White House!! Ron Paul was and is
the better gentleman.

I use to think that "we the people" get who we deserve in office and
how wrong I've been. It's more like "we the people" get who the pundits
and the MSM desire us to choose from.

Trusting in Him,

Todd H.

P.S. After the dust settles. I do have one expectation for the next four
years. I'm looking forward to attending one of the many speaking
engagements Ron Paul will be having on his new speaking tour. Should be
great times.

GO RON PAUL!!

Greetings Freedom lovers,

I have something weighing heavily upon my mind and so I would like to share with you.

I'm sure that you have had precious items in your hands at one time or another. Precious here is not necessarily meaning dollars but more likely a valued place in our hearts thus it is priceless. We all have held a document, an art piece, a tie, or garment in our hands which we've either put much time into creating or making. It simply has great heart felt meaning in our lives. Maybe your child just handed you a completed assignment neatly done, a bible passage on a reminder card, fancy doily, or maybe a precious letter from a friend. As you hold this priceless item and place it down upon a resting place you failed to notice the drop of liquid on the counter upon which you placed this item. Well, there it is, a water stain, blueberry stain, beet juice, tar, or a burn. Don't ask me how tar got on the counter I just plan for the worst and hope for the best. You just never know. As that stain seeps on the bottom of paper soaking through to the surface it gives testimony of an oversight we have just committed in the caring for that item. Then under complete control you would say, "How careless I have become, I must be more careful. How can I make it right again?"

Oh how I wish I had only looked first at this place of rest for my "precious". If only I had first bent over to look at that surface in the reflection of a light so as to see the hidden liquid puddle. I should have at least lifted my hand and sacrificed it upon the surface to check for invisible liquids or potential snags or tiny hooks. The damage is done, opportunity of its use maybe lost just temporarily. Maybe it just needs to be brushed off quickly to remedy the situation. Nope, it most likely is in need of total replacement ruining not only the use of it but also the plans for the entire project of the week. Or worse, it is lost for ever without any possibility of recovery!

As we are susceptible to such errors in judgment with our more personal physical items, we are also and even more tending toward error with things which are life changing such as our spiritual well being or protecting our personal freedoms. We are all called to hold things up to the light of a standard, this is the hard part. We as Christians are to hold things to the light of His word, testing them to be worthy in the the light scripture, Heb 4:12. We are not to take these freedoms for granted nor think that they will be protected by someone else. You know how it works, we have sentinels on the gates to warn us of dangers coming from the other side so that we may make ourselves ready. Sentinels are there to warn us, when we hear them cry out how will we respond?

I value my freedoms such as to freely worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to live my life according to those principles, to own a gun and to own property. Yet, I must understand that all of these freedoms are an abomination to many people in this nation, believe it or not this is true. These same people will work day and night conspiring to take them away simply for a greater plan of acquiring power and control over other men and to bring this nation down. Is this not an ongoing struggle? Go and read the first three chapters in Psalms? I do not just value and protect these freedoms for myself but for others to enjoy and live by as well. I do not want to stain our freedoms nor my vote by electing someone into office who has a record of not protecting these freedoms or who may not understand why these freedoms exist. I do not want to place a stain such as a law which would further restrict any of these freedoms. Instead I desire someone who will help me polish them so that they look even better, so that we are made even more secure in our freedoms.

So what is my issue? When someone tells me that I'm about to set a document on a blueberry stain, I should be most humble in receiving that alert, and most thankful to that individual for averting a damage to that which I hold most dear. When it comes to my God given FREEDOMS granted to me I will humbly accept and seek to verify what the truth is and then decide what needs to be done to protect my freedoms so that I and my posterity may continue to enjoy them. When it comes time to use my precious right to vote, BEFORE I LAY THAT VOTE DOWN, I will most assuredly "raise my hand" and check beyond the surface of things, to "bend over" and see the principles in the light of His word and to verify a candidate's respect and obedience to our U.S. Constitutional foundations! It is by these acts which help to insure me not to stain my precious vote with something I failed to notice. It is the alerts from sentinels such as parents, brothers, sisters, friends, fellow Christians, pastors, elders, statesmen and pundits which I listen to or read. Then I test to verify, respond where needed and then pass on to others. Without sentinels on the walls how can we watch every wall? Or, am I one who can trust my own heart for indeed the heart is wicked who can know it. That which appears to me to be a grazing sheep in the field may actually be a stalking wolf! Our own hearts may deceive us. Many of us are sheep, fewer are shepherds, many more are the wolves and the most dangerous wolves are in sheep's clothing. God has so warned us in His word about this, which is why we are called to fellowship one with another, iron sharping upon iron. We are even more called to hone our judgments so that we remain not suckling upon the milk of His word but to feed more so upon the meet of His doctrines. We are called to have been exercising our senses to discern both good and evil - Heb 5:11-14

These are just some of the the reasons which we nurture and teach our own children. So that they do not fall prey to false doctrines or lukewarmness and end up submitting to tyrants. Nor will they fail to see the value in their precious vote, documents or doctrines. For who does God say He would spew out of the land the heathen or the ones who are lukewarm in their faith in God? So we pray that they mature and gain the ability to not only discern right from wrong but to discern the wolves in sheep clothing.

Vote wisely, for our battle is not against flesh nor blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places - Eph 6:12. Do not stain your vote, check more than the mere surface of a thing. Many Christians will become easily offended when informed about their "hero's" flaws and become obstinate to the truth and refuse to honestly answer a thing. We are to seek truth and shed a light on the wicked and tear the sheep hide off the wolves. We must present information without malice, read and read again a document which is presented. If we're offended then seek prayer and a righteous answer, do not seek to put a false guilt upon others or desire the suppression of ideas. After all, it just might be that the person's concerns are valid concerns.

With a presidential primary in full swing we need to find and support the right person for the office NOW before he loses in the nomination. He must be someone who is understanding of all our precious freedoms which we consider priceless. The choice of a president is serious and to judge by simply ones character is subjective, emotional and contrary to Eph 6:12, i.e. this one is funny so I'll vote for him. What are their guiding principles? If there are concerns of a politician who may not have our freedoms "fully" in mind then we need to know about it before we "STAIN OUR VOTE" or our "FREEDOM". Wouldn't you want to hear about it? We will not desire someone who is a compromiser to any of our freedoms seriously. It is one of the reasons we blog, converse, read the news, search for truth and study His word so that we desire  righteousness.

If we become an oppressed people, our money worthless, our lives controlled by tyrants, I don't want it to be because we were not aware, didn't understand, were duped, or because we had told our sentinels to "keep silent you're disturbing my peace!" Let us not become careless with our vote. Be careful who you place that vote upon, for you do not want to stain it with the actions of a someone immature in their understandings of freedoms, their lack of knowledge or respect for the Constitution. It would take much more work to get back those freedoms which we voted away unknowingly. How will you respond? What is your goal? OUR goal should be righteousness, Matt 5:6, Prov 12:28!

Our goal is to vote for FREEDOM. Vote for Ron Paul.

May God grant wisdom to the people. Let us not suffer for lack of knowledge. So, please visit these places for information and understanding.

http://www.home-school.com/news/huckabee.html

http://www.rp-supporters.com/compare.html

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/mckamey6.html

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/