User Profile: Lordchamp


Member Since: October 31, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [36] May 20, 2015 at 1:02pm

    This is the same old tired argument. Christians are only supposed to be passive, loving, meek, turn the other cheek. As long as they can convince Christians of that, they can control us.

    GOD gave us the right of self defense by the mere fact that we are human. Those that propagate the ideas in this article rarely mention that fact. So are we to obey God only in the passive things? I say NO!

    We are called to be bold in the face of evil. Not to sit by passively and let it overrun us but that is what these people would have us do. They espouse this because they realize that if we ever wake up as a group and stand up for our faith as we should, they will have no defense against us, especially IF we are also armed.

    Firearms are not the problem. Lousy social morals and ethics are the problem. When you accept that it is ok to murder the unborn, that attitude natually, it’s human nature, spills over into our other “accepted” thoughts and activities, such as how we interact with others.

    Move back to a moral and ethical society and the firearm problem takes care of itself. History proves it.

    Christians aren’t out there killing each other with their firearms like others are in the morally bankrupt cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and many others.

    We never learn from history. EVERY massacre of people of faith by government began with disarming them.

    Responses (4) +
  • [16] May 1, 2015 at 9:16am

    Sounds like the preparation for a false flag even to me. It’s been proven over and over they don’t care about anyone but themselves so there has to be some ulterior motive that benefits them in some way in this.

    The liberals always tell you what they are going to do if you pay close enough attention because they have to look like they are being benevolent in taking away your freedoms.

    Too many “coincidences” happening all at one time here to be coincidence.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-3] April 18, 2015 at 8:21pm

    There is right and wrong, not just LAW. Just because something is a “LAW” does not make it right, just, or constitutional either for that matter.

    The RIGHT thing for the LEO to do would have been to take the flag and tell everyone to leave the area. They should have stopped what was going on instead of condoning it by their actions.

    Regardless of the consequences, they should have stopped the desecration of the flag.

    Frankly, I don’t care what the supremes say about what can be done with the flag. They too have forgotten who they work for.

    So “technically” speaking, she was right and they were wrong.

  • [32] April 16, 2015 at 10:19pm

    When we stop supporting the right to associate with whomever we choose we’re done. Our pathway to slavery is then complete.

    I couldn’t care less who you sleep with in your own bedroom but you force it into my life and then I care and will fight it. This guy is saying the same thing.

    He said OPENLY gay he would not provide service to. In other words keep your personal life personal and you have no problem with this man and most anyone else for that matter.

    It’s way past time we stand up for these bullies. They want to slap us in the face, return the favor. Stand toe to toe and never back down. I expect most will turn tail and run once faced with someone with real backbone. If not that is their choice and I respect that. Hopefully they are prepared for the consequences of their actions.

    It’s time we begin to gather together to protect each other from their threats even though most are just hot air. If necessary to stand armed guard to protect each other from these violent crazies.

    Yet we’re the bad guys for merely wanting to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit and to allow them to do the same. It’s pure insanity.

    Responses (3) +
  • [7] March 31, 2015 at 8:17pm

    So because something we think is bad might happen we don’t enforce the law of the land.

    If there is no law applied to the highest office in the land there should be no law applied to any of us below that office because the rule of law no longer exists. It is merely whatever we say it is whenever we want and whatever we want.

    It’s really that simple. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none you can’t pick and choose. If you do, it is no longer the rule of law but the rule of man. Who you are or who you know.

    Blind justice is officially dead.

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 8:36pm

    Politicians who only are out for one thing, power over us.

    Do you remember in your lifetime government getting smaller to any significant extent?

    They will never, EVER do anything to reduce their power unless forced by us to do so and WE will not be running ANY convention, no matter what it’s called, con-con, article V, constitutional convention, etc. THEY will be running it.

  • [8] March 27, 2015 at 8:29pm

    Personally, I think a much better way to get something really accomplished, rather than trusting our future to a situation we don’t know we can control, is to do this through our States directly.

    We all need to begin pushing our State governments to simply withdraw their consent to the feral government. As the old saying goes, just say NO. No, we won’t do this or that as the situation arises.

    No, we won’t send you those tax dollars to waste on that.

    No, we won’t implement that in our schools.

    No, we won’t follow what your courts say if it is wrong for our State.

    No, we won’t continue to be a part of this union if you don’t leave us alone. You’ve broken the contract we wrote when we established you, the federal government. Since WE made you, we can make you go away if we choose.

    THAT is how this should be dealt with. From a position of power, not a position of cowering and hoping things work out.

    A bully only responds to one thing and that is not weakness but strength.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] March 27, 2015 at 8:18pm

    It’s basically whatever you want it to mean.

    Really. That’s the truth since there is no “Constitutional” definition of it, it is just whatever the “system” decided the meaning is.

    You could interpret things one way and I could interpret them another. Who is to say which is correct?

    It boils down to whoever is in power at the moment the definition is needed and if that definition fits their purpose at that particular time.

    That in a nutshell is what the whole problem with this situation is. There are no set standards because this has never happened in the history of this Country. The closest example we have is the first convention which was called to AMMEND the Articles of Confederation. Just ammend it, not rewrite it.

    However, that is exactly what they did, they threw it out and started over.

    In an ideal world, where the Constitution is read and interpreted as it is written and not twisted to mean whatever the powers that be NEED it to mean at the time, maybe Article V COULD be interpreted to be restrictive in some way.

    But in a time in our history when “shall not be infringed” is misinterpreted. You choose for yourself if you are willing to trust the process to those currently in power.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 27, 2015 at 7:17pm

    Where is the difference in a “constitutional convention” and and Article V convention spelled out exactly? Please show us where we can find that.

    Who determines which is which? Who sets the rules?

    That is exactly the problem with this process, there ARE NO DEFINITIVE RULES. They get made up as they go along.

    How is allowing DC to make the rules up as they go alone a good thing?

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] March 27, 2015 at 7:06pm

    No where in Article V does it say the States run the convention. They merely place the request and Congress calls it. From that point there is NO law set as to how it’s conducted.

    It’s all speculation at this point and that IS the problem.

    ANYTHING left to interpretation by lawyers and politicians is not going to end well for us.

    I would suggest you read the Founders and history and pay attention to human nature. Mark Levin wants to sell books and speaking engagements. He has something to gain by this, the Founders and history do not.

  • [-1] March 27, 2015 at 7:03pm

    Just where in the Constitution is there any definition of what is or is not a “Constitutional Convention”?

    In fact, where in our law anywhere is that definition? Other than from the pundits and the ones pushing for a convention, there is no definition that I’m aware of.

    So who is to determine exactly what a convention means and how it’s conducted since there is no predetermined or predesigned template?

    Politicians, that’s who. The same ones that have gotten us where we are today.

    Even many of the Founders recommended against having another convention at any point in the future if we wanted to hold on to what we have. There’s got to be a good reason for that.

    Maybe it was that, in their wisdom, they knew that once the Country was established and the politicians were entrenched that they would NEVER do anything that would take away ANY of their power. That the only thing they would do in another convention would be to take more from us and give more to them.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 6:52pm

    Exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me.

    They are not paying attention to the current Constitution. They are not following it at all.

    What in the world makes anyone think they will follow the “law” pertaining to a convention no matter what it’s called or who calls it. Once they are there and the ball is rolling, do you really think they will feel constrained by anything?

    Who says the method of approval will remain the same? What is to stop them from changing that? The Constitution? Really? Like it stopped them from taking all the freedoms and liberties we’ve already lost?

    Hopefully you are not that naive.

    The first convention was not called as a “constitutional convention” either. It was called for the purpose of merely amending the Articles of Confederation and they ended up writing a whole new Constitution so how can we say it can’t or won’t be done.

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 6:41pm

    Are you sure?

    What proof do you have?

    Are you really willing to bet your Country on politicians telling you the truth about this?

    Remember the closest situation we have to this was the first Convention that was called for the purpose of AMENDING the Articles of Confederation. We all know how that turned out as we have our current Constitution to show for it.

    If you are wrong what are you then willing to do about it?

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] March 27, 2015 at 6:36pm

    One question for all those who think a convention s a good idea, disregarding that the last convention we had completely changed the existing Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.

    What if we’re right about the convention being hijacked, what are you prepared to do then?

    Give that some serious thought because the choices are slim. You will either allow them to continue and rewrite the Constitution or rise up and physically stop them by force of arms.

    Those really are the only two choices because the changes that will be made most certainly will not be to give us more freedom.

    So think long and hard before you think this is a good idea and if you do you better get your affairs in order because it will not turn out good.

    Do you REALLY trust ANY politician or political process in today’s America to do anything to actually IMPROVE our freedoms and liberties?

    Responses (5) +
  • [31] March 25, 2015 at 12:28pm

    Every single one of those industries is consumption.

    NO production. No making of “things”. That means no exports and total dependancy on others instead of having others dependant on us and our products. No manufacturing means you can’t support yourself properly as a Country. It also means lower pay which translates into lower lifestyle.

    Walmart/ChinaMart, the new American dream job.

    Says a lot for who we have become and yet still are becoming.

  • [4] March 23, 2015 at 1:08pm

    “…praying with her to accept Jesus, an act that orthodox believers undertake to become official followers of Christ.”

    Not sure who initiated this statement, the Blaze or others but I must remind them that personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and repentance of your personal sins is the ONLY way to salvation according to the Bible. “Orthodox” or not, whatever they mean by that anyways, there is only one way to salvation, regardless of what the humanist and others promote.

    Me thinks the Blaze is quicking becoming more and more “politically correct” and in fact I see some signs of moving even away from conservative principles and this is very disturbing. It seems the money is becoming more important than the principles.

    Statements like this are totally unneeded unless you are attempting to cater to those on the left that are generally not part of us “clinging to our guns and religion”.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] March 17, 2015 at 1:54pm

    The last comment in the article is EXACTLY the problem here. There is no way to discipline these people so there is no fear of discipline. They can do anything they want and get away with it with nothing more than a smack on the hand, if even that.

    No rule of law, no discipline, no enforced standards, no morals, no ethics.

  • [5] January 6, 2015 at 2:51pm

    At the end of those two years, based on the past, where do you really think we will be?

    Let’s see, we have the same leadership that has done absolutely nothing the entire time obama has been in office to stop things to this point so what REALLY do you expect them to do now?

    I truly hope you are not that naive but unfortunately I expect you are.

    That is why they will continue with exactly what they have done in the past, anything that benefits themselves and securring their futures and power. They will GROW the feral government just like they have in the past.

    Because people will not get past their naive feelings that politicians in this government will ever do anything for anyone other than themselves, the status quo will continue.

    Our representative American Republic is dead, not dying, DEAD. The sooner that is accepted, the sooner the bones can be swept away and replaced.

    You better be focusing on your State and local governments and making sure they are strong enough to fight what is coming.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] January 6, 2015 at 2:34pm

    If anyone have any doubts that national politics is a dead game to all of us outside of washington you should finally, once and for all have you answer.

    We do not matter and what we think and say does not matter.

    We are the little people, the ruled. They are the elite, the RULERS. They don’t have to listen, they know best. They ARE the best.

    Anyone with ANY remaining small hope of changing anything in washington through the ballot box should officially cast that aside and save those energies for something productive, like picking your nose.

    You would accomplish more doing that than working to affect anything in washington.

    So what to do now?

    Withdraw. Period.

    Withdraw consent, withdraw funds, withdraw energies, withdraw actions. Withdraw anything that does anything to feed the beast that is washington and the feral government.
    No funds to ANY national political candidate. Do not support them with time, money, or actions in any way. Do not support companies that support them. Starve them and starve the government. It’s all about money and power, take away the money and they lose power.

    What choice do you have other than continuing the insanity.

    Responses (1) +
  • [9] December 22, 2014 at 2:21pm

    I am SICK of this humanistic, liberal, yes LIBERAL, crap. All the feel good, touchy feely, emotion tweaking garbage. It’s just more liberal propaganda like what is spewed in the public indoctrination centers known as public schools.

    There is very little biblical basis to most of what these people spew.

    I can almost guarantee that if this man went into his church and preached a sermon on sin and salvation only though belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior or you are going to hell, he would be run out of the church.

    He is no better than the race baiters like sharpton and jackson. It accomplishes the same thing. Rather than teaching people how to pull themselves up they give them more reasons to be victims.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love