Missouri officials SUE RESIDENTS for Voting Against Police State

Question: When do you know that you live in a tyranny?

Answer: When the citizens vote to ban red light cameras and the city reacts by suing them.

St. Peters, O’Fallon, Lake St. Louis, and a councilman from O’Fallon have filed a lawsuit against their OWN CITIZENS.

In November of last year, the citizens of St. Charles County democratically expressed their anger with the use of red light cameras in their town. Seventy-three percent of those who went to the polls approved a measure to ban red light cameras.

However, the fat cat bureaucrats, apparently afraid of losing the money generated from the rights-violating red light cameras, don’t like that vote. They are now taking action to punish the citizens for trying to undermine their perceived authority.

“Seventy-three percent of the voters pass a ban on red light cameras so what these cities are doing are suing 73 percent of the voters in St. Charles County, within their own cities. They’re suing their own residents,” said St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazil.

In true Orwellian fashion, the cities are claiming that the measure, which was passed by voters, is unconstitutional.

The attorney representing the cities in the lawsuit said the county’s legal authority is cut and dry.

By Matt Agorist – The Free Thought Project –

Virginia mulls ConCon effort to rein in federal powers

Virginia is one of the latest states involved in a new push for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution in a bid to rein in the federal government — part of a nascent campaign on an issue states have been grappling with since at least the 18th century.

National and state GOP leaders are supportive of the idea, saying that a convention of the states is needed to stop an out-of-control federal government, but some conservatives say such a gathering could end up as a free-for-all and risk radically altering the founding document.

Resolutions calling for a convention to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and impose term limits on members of Congress recently advanced out of committees in Virginia’s House and Senate, along with separate resolutions calling specifically for a balanced budget amendment.

Michael Farris, a former GOP nominee for Virginia lieutenant governor, is helping spearhead the push for a convention of the states, a project of the group Citizens for Self-Governance.

The movement is nothing new, but Mr. Farris said he got the idea for a renewed effort after the 2012 election. He said it made sense legally and politically to start fresh rather than try to build on prior disparate efforts that have seen mixed results.

At least 34 states, or two-thirds, must pass applications for a convention and ultimately would need a sign-off from Congress….

Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to propose amendments, but it states that “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

Rather than calling for a specific amendment, this particular movement is calling for a convention of the states to reduce the power and scope of the federal government. The language in Virginia’s proposals specifically call for a convention to pass amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

The Republican-controlled House of Delegates voted down a similar resolution during last year’s session, and the fate of this year’s effort is still very much up in the air.

Three states — Alaska, Georgia and Florida — passed the group’s convention of states application last year, and lawmakers in a dozen states are considering them this year….

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times –

‘Christianophobia’ Research — and a Cautionary Warning!

Sociologists at the University of North Texas are issuing a cautionary warning to Christians noting that, though there isn’t widespread “Christianophonia” in the U.S., the small group of those who have a strong aversion to conservative believers are among the influential and elite.

George Yancey and David Williamson shared findings corroborating this notion in their recently released book “So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States?” which promises to offer a “provocative look at anti-Christian sentiments in America.”

The sociologists, who define Christianophobia as “unreasonable hatred or fear of Christians,” argue that it’s worth exploring potential intense bias against Christians, as it helps readers understand the “social dynamics” that exist in the U.S., according to an official book description.

As far as how prevalent the problem truly is, Yancey told the Christian Post that it’s really a small group of people that hold strong hostility, though that group is comprised of elite individuals with more societal power than the average person.

Yancey said that he and his co-author were motivated to explore potential Christianophobia after they began collecting qualitative data from interviews with liberal activists and noticed a troubling trend among a certain subset of these respondents.

That in mind, a few months ago, the sociologist shared a sampling of some of the “unreasonable hatred” he said he encountered through interviews with cultural progressive activists for the purpose of his study. Here are just three of the comments that were made about the Christian right:

“I want them all to die in a fire.” (Male, aged 26-35 with Doctorate)

“They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse. Their only purpose is to damage and inflict their fundamentalist virus onto everyone they come in contact with.” (Female, aged 66-75 with Master degree)

“They make me a believer in eugenics….They pollute good air…I would be in favor of establishing a state for them… If not, then sterilize them so they can’t breed more.” (Male, aged 46-55 with Master degree)

These statements caused Yancey to look deeper at the pool of respondents — individuals who were chosen from unnamed groups that are actively opposed to sentiments held by many conservative Christians….

“I have established that those with animosity towards conservative Christians tend to have more per-capita social power than those with animosity towards other religiously based groups,” Yancey wrote in a blog post last year. “They are more likely to be white, educated and wealthy. The education advantage creates a unique dimension in this group as one may contend that highly educated individuals are unlikely to engage in unreasonable level of hatred or anger.”

….Yancey cited as evidence non-discrimination policies enacted in California Christian colleges that have forced some student groups out of official recognition if they refuse to allow atheists and other non-Christians the opportunity to lead those groups — something that he said seems to show evidence of college administrators exhibiting “some degree of latent Christianophobia with a fiction of promoting equality.”

“We documented that some level of Christianophobia is present among certain powerful subcultures in our society,” he continued. “This helps us understand some actions in our society.”

By Billy Hallowell – The Blaze –

Police power is the foundation of the state

By Bob Livingston – PersonalLiberty.com –

“Government is not reason; it’s not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it’s a dangerous servant and a fearful master…” — George Washington

If there are two words in the English language that we need to understand, they are the words “police power.”

Government is police power. Government by definition, by nature, by history and by practical existence is police power. Government would not and could not exist without police power. When governments lose their police power, they collapse.

Every act of government and its politicians is motivated by its police power. Government police power is awesome, and it is a hush-hush subject.

Let’s look at the sixth edition of “Black’s Law Dictionary,” which defines police power as: “The power of the state to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions, and especially to the requirements of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government.” Marshall v. Kansas City, MO. 355 SW 2nd 877,883.

Government’s promotion of “order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare” is the essence of its “public policy.” The term “public policy” is a very innocent and disarming term which in reality is the very opposite of the public impression.

“Public policy” is actually the police power in action. It is the manifestation of police power the implementation of government force. Back to “Black’s Law Dictionary” on public policy: “That principle of the law which holds that no subject (that’s you) can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term ‘policy,’ as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state…”

There you have it: a police state. Do not be deceived by Black’s mention of “limitations of the federal and state constitutions…” Police power is not limited and does not come about by due process but by usurpation and wrongful seizure of your mind and body through deception.

 
Continue Reading

Romans 13 : The Higher Liberty

By Gregory Williams – HisHolyChurch.org –

“You can fool all of the people some of the time and You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln.

When I first began to talk about government and the Bible in the same paragraphs, I heard people respond with quotes from Romans 13 probably more than any other verse. It Reads:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13: 1

Of course we should honor true authority, such as our Father and Mother, or others that God places over us (or we go under by contract and agreement), but is that even what Romans 13 is talking about? Have we been completely misled about the meaning of that scripture by Paul?

The Greek word exousia translated in Romans 13:1 as power or authority actually means the “right to choose”, the “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.”1

It is also translated as the word “right” in Revelations.

“Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have [exousia] right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Re 22:14

The whole idea of the tree of life is about choice and the right to choose, to obey God, and follow him and not your own willfulness. Nor are we to go under the will of other men and their created institutions which may establish an authority over us as we see with Cain, Nimrod and Pharaoh.

Paul is simply telling you in Romans 13 that you should remain subject to the better or higher liberty or right to choose.

Exousia is even translated as “liberty” in 1 Corinthians.

“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” 1Co 8:9

The word liberty in this verse is the same word translated power in Romans 13.

Christ came to set men free not to deliver them into the bondage of governments like those of Egypt or Babylon. Early Christians were part of a government appointed by Christ and were cast out2 of the Hellenized Pharisaical system of Corban in Judea when thousands accepted Christ at Pentecost. They began to live according to those precepts established in the perfect law of liberty, by faith, hope and charity. This was done with freewill offerings, and not the covetous and forced offerings of benefactors in other governments who exercised authority.

 
Continue Reading