The nullification movement is sweeping across the nation and people are fighting for their Constitutional rights.  Nowhere is this truer than in Colorado.  After the controversial redistricting led to Democrats taking over both the State House and Senate in November 2012, an extreme liberal agenda was pushed at unprecedented speeds.


This included gun control, with laws such as universal background checks, which Ted Cruz has called a “pathway to a national gun registry.”  In addition, concealed carry training must now be done face-to-face rather than online, and anyone who has even been accused of domestic violence or is under a restraining order is now banned from using guns, whether guilty or not.

Unable to affect the outcome of traditional legislative battles, conservatives and liberty activists statewide started to look to alternative solutions.  While Weld County spearheaded a surprisingly popular initiative to split from Colorado, the first two recall elections in the state’s history were organized against Democrat Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

Even on the small scale, citizens are taking actions to try to make a difference.  One of these is “Put it to the People,” founded by Tim LeVier and JT Davis.  This organization is circulating petitions to get a Constitutional Amendment on next fall’s ballot.  The amendment is intended to nullify one of the many gun control laws passed in the State Legislature in 2013.

House Bill 13-1224 limits the capacity of gun magazines to 15 rounds.  It also bans all magazines which are “readily convertible” to hold more than 15 rounds – such as any magazine with a detachable floor plate – meaning that nearly all magazines would be.  The bill also requires “continuous possession” of the magazines, meaning that selling, borrowing, giving or bequeathing such magazines is illegal.

A youtube video demonstrates how this law essentially includes most if not all magazines that are made in the U.S.

The same law prompted a lawsuit by most of the state’s sheriffs.  In response, Colorado-based magazine manufacturer Magpul also left the state, but not before it had organized a “Colorado Airlift,” in which it distributed thousands of high capacity magazines to Colorado residents in the months before the ban went into effect, meaning that those magazines would be grandfathered in.

LeVier and Davis’ proposed amendment reads “No law, except a law enacted by a vote of the people, shall restrict or limit the right of the people to purchase or possess ammunition storage and feeding devices of any capacity.”

The proposed initiative is a constitutional amendment because this would prevent the state legislature from simply re-passing the bill.  Both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado’s State Constitution contain stronger pro-gun rights language, though.

In addition to the Second Amendment, which reads that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Colorado Constitution Article II Section 14 reads “that the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herin contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

Approached as a short-term solution to the problem, Put it to the People makes sense.  It would repeal one of the multiple heinous gun control laws passed in 2013 – though perhaps not the worst – and make it somewhat more difficult for such laws to pass in the future.  Instead of simply repealing the ban, the amendment contains some safeguards for the future.  With the rapid influx of people changing Colorado’s political landscape, though, this is unlikely to remain a deterrent to further legislation.

States throughout the nation are passing legislation that nullifies federal laws like N.D.A.A, voter ID laws, and other laws that states deem unconstitutional.

Tom Woods  says that the word “nullification” was introduced by Thomas Jefferson who stated that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers.”

Americans throughout the nation are using this legal mechanism and the principles of nullification to fight back government overreach.

Thumbnail 1
One of the largest gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), is encouraging its members and citizens to wear T-shirts that read, “I WILL NOT COMPLY,” in protest to the magazine ban.


They state on their website, “Stand in opposition to the draconian magazine ban in Colorado by sporting our “I Will Not Comply” t-shirt … this shirt lets anti-gun politicians know that you won’t forget their vote on this bill.”


This attempt to nullify the magazine ban is purely a grassroots initiative. From pro-gun groups like RMGO and two working fathers Tim LeVier and JT Davis in a Denver suburb, the movement is picking up support from people who care about their Constitutional rights.

To get on the ballot, the initiative needs 100,000 signatures by December 9th.  About 15% of those needed have already been collected as of this publication. See their website here.

One thing is clear, the nullification movement is alive and well in America today. And the 2nd Amendment is not something Americans are willing to give up without a fight. Colorado is going to have a hard time enforcing this ban if the People of the state feel differently.



The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and reporter for Truth In Media. He has interviewed many politicians including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Walter Jones, Bob Graham, Trey Gowdy and thought leaders who shape U.S. policy. He is a host of 'Beer and Politcs' on Truth In Media. If you have any tips please email him at Find him on Twitter @RealJoshuaCook

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Joseph C. Carbone III

    If there was ever a time the federal government is needed, it is to protect the right of the people. Because even this concession is a grievous error: “No law, except a law enacted by a vote of the people, shall restrict or limit the right of the people to purchase or possess ammunition storage and feeding devices of any capacity.”

    The statement “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” could not be any clearer, and Colorado’s unlawful Constitution stating that “nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons” is an attack the free people of United States.

    Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 22 August 2013

  • Jay Volk

    First off, We are a constitutional republic, Not a democracy, the majority does not rule in the matter of law of this magnitude. We have steps to amending the constitution, and this is not it.

    Second, The constitution **The Second Amendment** Already promises that we can own whichever gun we want, and how many we want, while the government has no right of knowing anything.

    The 2nd Amendment reads:

    “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.”

    No man shall ask permission from the government/state a power to which doesn’t belong TO the government/state. Stop asking permission, the law and right belongs to you already.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Matters like these: life, worship, assembly, press, privacy, et cetera go beyond the Constitution, and any amendment proposed to restrict inalienable rights are illegitimate not because the Constitution speaks for or against them but because they are inherent to human beings—unchallengeable.

      The freedoms set forth in the Constitution are affirmations of what already exist, and it is essential to understand they are restrictions upon government from attempting to seize inalienable freedoms, which is to say: they do not give permission to the people but restrict the government; no amendment by a super majority would make overbearing actions lawful.

      There are laws above the Constitution that no amendment will change, but there are reasons to submit to such domination and there is appropriate resistance.

      Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 23 August 2013

      • Jay Volk

        I couldn’t agree more my friend, as I am well aware of what the constitution is, and who it actually limits. However, I believe this form of resistance is not warranted; to redress the government on this issue would automatically assume the government CAN do what it has currently done. It is passive acceptance, and until each man woman and child grabs their guns and holds them close in a march never before seen since the Civil war, they will not arrive to the conclusion or outcome that they are looking for. Mass Civil protest is required, let their voices be heard in the streets, in the alleys, near schools and post offices. Sometimes paper isn’t the most effective way to promote the will of the people, sometimes it’s the voice that is lacking.

  • R-WOOD

    Anyone who has even been accused of domestic violence or is under a restraining order is now banned from using guns, whether guilty or not. HOW COOL IS THAT ?? Not one cop in colorado can have a gun.

  • Kevin Merck

    This is going to be an uphill battle, made more difficult by the fact that we’ve been letting leftwing, white, feminist nutcases, teach in our schools for decades. I went to school in the sixties and seventies and they were full of nutcase feminists back then.
    We will never defeat these people if we all keep tiptoeing around who this enemy is. It is mostly white, female, feminist, nutcases, and welfare trash. The welfare trash shouldn’t even be allowed to vote. Allowing people to vote, who in no way contribute to the tax base is crazy. Of course they are going to vote for a socialist dictator who promises them a new house and a new car that they didn’t have to work for.
    This is headed for a civil war, people, and that’s exactly what these feminist nutcases want. They love pain and death and get off on the power trip murdering an unborn child gives them. They want to kill granny, then Christens, gun owners, Libertarians, and when everyone but you is gone, who do you think will be next.
    White, feminist females are the enemy. Not all white females, there are many good white women out there, but they will be murdered by the feminist pigs who hate good Christen women. There is nothing a feminist pig hates worse than a woman who does not condone abortion.

    • Rooks

      your ignorance is impressive to say the least. Realize that it is the people elected to run our government who are doing this and that feminism is still a taboo politically. Plain and simply people in power will do just about anything to remain in power. Also you seem to associate yourself with libertarians but seem to miss the point of the movement which is less government all around. So if you wish to take your comatose mother off of life support that is your choice and if you wish to leave them on life support you also have that choice. The government does not intervine. In accordance with this, if you choose to have an automatic assualt rifle with a drum clip holding 300+ rounds you should have that god given right which is also granted by our constitution.
      As for your comments on abortion try and understand that many more women and children would be hurt if it is made illegal as we would see more and more back alley abortions. Or look to the woman in Ireland where abortions were and largely still are outlawed. She petitioned for an abortion of an almost fully developed fetus that had died in her. she was denied the life saving procedure and ended up dying herself. This world is not seperated into black and white but a many varying shades of gray. I hope you can leave hate behind and fight for freedom unclouded.

      • Kevin Merck

        No hate here my friend, just harsh words for brutally insane people.

        Roe v Wade was intended to help the people you refer to in your comment.

        In reality, less than 1% of abortions are attributable to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

        Any sane approach to government recognizes the “God Given Rights” of all people, and that includes unborn children.

        Millions of children around the world are murdered every year and it’s time to stop the insanity.

      • Joseph C. Carbone III

        Dear Rooks,

        How many things are more important than understanding actions have consequences?

        You said, “Abortion[,] try and understand that many more women and children would be hurt if it is made illegal as we would see more and more back alley abortions”

        Although I believe you are striving for something you think is good, you are being woefully misguided.

        Women harming themselves and killing their children in alleys is nothing less than murder, and any self-harm from these actions are grievously upon the individual. However, that is where our problem really lies a lack of understanding.

        Therefore, you would be better served and so would your cause to fight for education not this self-destructive uninformed position you are currently advocating, which sounds like it came from the text or lecture of a college English class if I am not mistaking.

        The body from life that has been lost being detached from a woman is not an abortion, an absolutely heartbreaking illustration.

        Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 25 August 2013

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Something you need to understand is men are fierce proponents of
      abortion and much of the force behind it woman’s decision to abort.

      • Kevin Merck

        That’s BS.
        The vast majority of abortions take place without the father knowing anything about it.
        Feminists always want to blame men for abortion, but to this date no man has ever had one.
        Females need to take full responsibility for the murders they alone commit – 100% of the time.

        • Joseph C. Carbone III

          Dear Mr. Merck,

          Examine the obvious; men make the laws. The Supreme Court of 1973 was all men, men dominate the Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive Branches. Do a quick search and find out how many women are complaining about men—their husbands’ and boyfriends’ anger and fear over pregnancy and the force they place on the women.

          Furthermore, I have worked as a counselor, chaplain, and as an assistant chaplain in the military. I have come across this problem many times. Do you think that the predominantly overwhelming doctor’s hand behind the abortions being a man’s hand is a coincidence, and who is it to be doing the act of murder? Legally, the mother is an accomplice to the murders and not the murderer.

          Also, look at the sociological and psychological makeup of a woman and understand the dependence they have on male direction, how the lack of direction neglects them, and is even an abuse. However, more than lack of direction men are the facilitators, promoters, and financial beneficiaries of abortion.

          Yes, in a manner of speaking, women murder their children, and they are responsible for their behavior but so are men. This is the fundamental synergy of the situation.

          Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 25 August 2013

          • Kevin Merck

            Save it Joe, you’re brainwashed and that’s not my opinion, it’s a cold hard fact.

            The men on the Supreme Court intended to give a female the opportunity to deal with rape, incest or to save their own life. They never intended it to be *murder on demand* at the behest of deranged female murderers.

            It was primarily females who fought to get it to where it is now *** wholesale murder***.

            Don’t be a fool, Joe. If you think for one minute that females would be taking responsibility if it were a man who had to bear children you are thoroughly mistaken. The female attitude toward us would be much as it is now. A man who doesn’t want an unexpected pregnancy is told to “man up” and support the unwanted child.

            If it were men who had to have children, females would bear no financial responsibility, and if it were men having abortions, females would be calling us murderers and men would be put to death without a second thought.

            It’s not about equality, Joe, females never wanted equality, they want total control, which is all a mentally ill control freak ever wants.

            Don’t get me wrong, Joe, there are a lot of good women out there, and you will know them by their fruits.

          • Joseph C. Carbone III

            Dear Merck,

            “Certainly rape is a horrible crime, but, what is worse: unnecessarily killing a person or the unwanted force that created that person? The answer is clear, the science is clear, and there could be no clearer biology,” I wrote a while ago.

            Your permission to murder regarding incest or even to save a woman’s life is misguided.

            If your life is hanging in the balance and you believe the life of the person next to you would save your own, this justifies murder?

            Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 25 August 2013

          • Kevin Merck

            Forget it Joe, I don’t mean to be rude, but I think this level of discourse is over your head.
            I never said I approved of the Roe v Wade decision, I merely stated the intent of the “men” you tried to blame for what abortion has become, (*wholesale murder*) were trying to give females an option to deal with those kind of desperate circumstances.
            Abortion should ****NEVER**** be allowed under ****any**** circumstances.
            I hope I made myself clear enough for you on this point, JOE.
            Stop trying to blame men for what women “Choose” to do.

          • Montgomery Scott

            I recall the original discussion, in which the citizens of the State of Colorado were to be allowed (ALLOWED?) to decide on the best role of the restrictions placed upon them by those ‘masters’ in D.C..
            You waste our time and divert attention from the story by cooperating with the diversionary tactics of the TROLL AKA ‘whatever-the-heck the third’; in regards to the strawman ‘abortion rights’ argument, and do a great disservice to this website (and the patriots that support it).

            Can you PLEASE get back on topic?

          • Joseph C. Carbone III

            Dear Mr. Scott,

            Although I was also thinking this is off topic, this is an important discussion, and you appear to be missing the obvious—that Mr. Merck introduced this topic.

            Again, I am hesitant to write another response because I agree that this discussion may resembling trolling behavior, but Mr. Merck writes with a lot of concern about our country and the human race and I appreciate him.

            In order to rightly accuse a person of straw man tactics, you should support your reasoning; I do not believe you can or that you know how based on your writing.

            Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 25 August 2013

          • Joseph C. Carbone III

            Dear Merck,

            The men of the Supreme Court gave men and women the alleged right to murder, and with the statement, “they never intended it to be murder on demand” your hostility toward women with, “females never wanted equality, they wanted total control, which is all control freaks ever want,” and your compassionless, they are all “deranged female murderers “ with no mention of the likely majority being men involved and the demonstrable evidence that men started, continue, and are the primary promoters of abortion, and other statements you have made dishonoring women, and it is reasonable to conclude your tone is sympathetic of the men involved in the Supreme Court and that you are ignoring the complicity of men.

            I humbly suggest you examine these things, be leaving you have an unreasonable and unhealthy hostility toward women, which is all I was trying to help you understand and that it is off-putting.

            Blessings friend, sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 25 August 2013

  • William Zabel

    Just remember the Second Amendment would never be needed till they try to take it away! Enough said. Remember the American Revolution, it is getting late and the drums are getting louder.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      In Mr. Zabel, one of the things I remember about the American Revolution, is how it ripped into the bodies of some of my family members and a limb off of one. JCCIII

      • Montgomery Scott

        You must be, what, 250 years old!
        Don’t you trouble yourself so much, old man. The Tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants (but it takes a nurse to change your adult diaper).

        • Joseph C. Carbone III

          You are incredibly disrespectful Mr. Scott; quoting you: “Don’t you trouble yourself so much, old man. The Tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants (but it takes a nurse to change your adult diaper).” JCCIII

  • Tannim

    I live in Colorado and this amendment is a bad idea, because while it does limit the legislature in one way, they can simply push it out as a referendum to voters here and there’s enough idiots voting in Denver and Boulder and Pueblo along with nutcase minorities in Colorado Springs to pass a voter-approved limitation.

    BTW, I support the Second Amendment and think the RKBA should apply in almost all circumstances for all firearms in full reciprocity with government–if they can have it, then we can have it, and if we can’t have it, then neither can they.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III


  • Arizona

    UNDER THE “DICK ACT OF 1902” ALL GUN LAWS ARE NULL AND VOID,in 1902, the federal government realized the banker commies would be coming after the GUNS some day,,SO THEY WROTE A FEDERAL LAW,to back up the second amendment,of the US CONSTUTITION,and it can’t be repealed,it can’t be changed,and it goes on forever,AND ITS “TREASON TO VIOLATE IT” that means anyone trying to change this law,or anyone ENFORCING GUN LAWS,are GUILTY OF TREASON,and can be shot on sight for VIOLATING THE DICK ACT of 1902,and this is one they will never admit rules it all……and its in FULL POWER to this day………THE ONLY PUNISHMENT FOR “TREASON” IS “SUMMARY EXECUTION”………….

    • ProudAmericanFirst

      Gun Control, The DICK ACT OF 1902, Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws

      • Oppelganger

        Thanks for this article- lots of helpful historical information in here, esp. the Federalist papers and the explanation of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws. In particular, the idea that Congress can pass a law the future Congresses cannot repeal is fundamentally undemocratic- that would constitute the equivalent of a constitutional amendment which is why a much higher bar is placed on the passage of such laws.

        One point of disagreement with the article though. It is Congressionally-enacted legislation- not some unilateral usurpation of authority by the executive- that authorized regulations under BATF, for example. You can disagree with those regs, with their constitutionality or how they’re carried out, but not with the fact that they were authorized by a law passed by Congress. The govt. would be even more dysfunctional than it already is if every aspect of law enforcement and administration had to be specifically authorized by Congress, as this article contends. While the Supreme Court has definitively affirmed the individual right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, it has also affirmed the right of governments (federal and state) to put reasonable restrictions on such use (prohibiting guns in a school, for instance).

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      I wish you would reference some specific evidence.

      However, I agree with the sentiment that individuals have the right to defend themselves and others as he or she sees fit within an obvious moral code and sanity.

  • Arizona

    EVER HEARD A “COP” say to someone IGNORANCE of the LAW is no excuse,WELL ALL YOU POLICE GANG MEMBERS,just remember,ignorance of the dick act of 1902,is a law passed to stop stupid M***F*** just like you, cause your about the most IGNORANT M***F*** I know…….and the fact your in a gang of TERRORISTS proves my point…………………

  • Oppelganger

    It’s important when talking about nullification to distinguish what type of nullification you’re talking about. Nullification of a state law by amending the state’s constitution is valid, and a federal or state law inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution can be nullified by challenging it in court. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, however, makes it fairly clear that state attempts to nullify validly enacted federal law through state law or a state constitutional amendment is not going to be successful. Any state law or constitutional amendment in such cases will only last as long as they are not challenged in court (not a likely scenario). As such going that particular route is likely not an effective use of one’s time…

    Jury nullification, on the other hand, which was not mentioned in this article, is a very effective way to prevent enforcement of unconstitutional laws, be they federal or state law. It has the detriment of being applied only on an ad hoc basis, but if the public is made sufficiently aware that this possibility exists and is well-established in law, it can be broadly applied. Judges rarely explain to juries that this is a power that they hold, and even go so far as to prohibit defense attorneys from making the jury aware of this power, which is why it is one that is infrequently exercised. Nonetheless, it is because the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers provides a check against overreach by all branches of government that the jury system was guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. As such, it’s an additional “tool in your arsenal” that should be considered.

    See this link for a quick background on jury nullification:

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      This is an excellent post: thanks to you!

  • Davis Ruthven

    “the right to to bear arms shall not be infringed”. I’ts funny how this new amendment would allow that right to be infringed if a popular vote allowed it. Majority rules???? That sounds bad too.

    • SontauranEmpire

      The smallest minority is a minority of one. This is why we do not have a direct democracy.

  • Montgomery Scott

    i have a question.
    I see a pic of a few clips, loaded with .223.
    When did you come to my house and take this picture?

  • Kevin Merck

    “After the controversial redistricting led to Democrats taking over both the State House and Senate in November 2012, an extreme liberal agenda was pushed at unprecedented speeds.”
    ***Extreme Liberal Agenda***
    That means these people are abortion fanatics, avidly denying a parent’s right to home school, demanding unreasonable taxation to pay for welfare and government jobs that now account for over half of all jobs in America, demanding that females get custody of children in divorce over 80% of the time and unwed mothers virtually 100% of the time, so they can extort “child support” from the father making him a slave to the state for most, if not all of his adult life. It doesn’t end there, the list goes on forever. I’m sure many of you could easily add to that list of unreasonable demands placed on free people.
    My point is that we can’t fight them on single issues like this. It needs to be a total rejection of their entire agenda. These people are authoritarian criminals and they need to fill the prisons that are now overflowing with men being persecuted on frivolous drug charges and for being in debt. (which has been illegal for over 150 years)
    These criminals want men put in prison to strip them of their right to vote and bear arms. Most of these people are white females who want to criminalize being a man and a father.
    This isn’t just about guns and magazine capacities people, it’s about an authoritarian takeover by a domestic enemy.

    • Joseph C. Carbone III

      Agreed…, excepting: “that most of these people are white females,” and that a man forced to support his offspring is a slave to the state. JCCIII

      • Kevin Merck

        Most of them are white females, that’s a fact, Joe, not my opinion.

        Child support is a racket, Joe, why do you think the mother is always given custody? It’s not in the child’s best interests as they claim. It’s for one reason and one reason only – money.
        Every father has an equal right to the care and custody of his children. The courts force the father out of the children’s lives so they can extort money from him. Most men only get to see their children twice a month and are living in poverty because of the extortionate child support awards. Many are in prison for arrears despite the fact that putting people in prison for debt has been illegal for over 150 years.

        The statistics on fatherless children prove beyond any doubt that children are better off with the father, but the courts know they can’t extort money from the mothers, because no one would pay it and people like you would be in favor of letting “deadbeat mothers” off the hook.

        However, the law requires, (real law, not color of law) that both parents share equally in custody matters. Only one problem, that would put an end to the multi-billion dollar child support racket.

        Please don’t respond any further to my comments, Joe, because I really don’t think you are a fair minded person.

        People like you, Joe, are the reason why the Founders created a Republic and not a Democracy. They didn’t want tyrants like you riding roughshod on everyone’s rights.

        • Joseph C. Carbone III

          Dear Merck,

          On a larger scale, men run this country and women are the product and recipients of their behavior—moving forward without approval is eventually reversed and deviating from prescribed agendas is not tolerated, however these things are not always immediately apparent because they take time; and, women as leaders are predominantly weaker. However, females are by no means inactive, though many in these movements are continuously pushing for an equality that is impossible, unrealistic, and self-defeating.

          However, do you recognize the good of these movements that have exposed abuse of women where there was once no notable unified national voice reaching the masses?

          How about the inspiration by the likes of feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton; pro-life feminists: Feminists for Life of America, established 1972, are proud to quote her: “Let woman assert herself in all her native purity, dignity, and strength, and end this wholesale suffering and murder of helpless children”; from 29 January 1868. If man’s nature was not so narcissistic and abusive, there would likely be no feminist movement.

          But, how do these movements succeed: “I had the conventional liberal’s view of the CIA as a right-wing incendiary group, and I was amazed to discover that this was far from the case, that they were enlightened, liberal, nonpartisan activists […]” (1), said covert CIA agent, Gloria Marie Steinem, second-wave feminist leader.

          Kathie Sarachild, a Redstockings feminist leader, explains why she believes one chapter out of her organization’s book was deleted before being published by Random House, because it exposed feminist Miss Steinem continued CIA operations: “sometimes a single individual comes to represent so much of what is wrong—and also has undue power to misinfluence things because of their connections in the power structure,” and expressed Miss Steinem gets help from the Carnegie Foundation, Mobil Oil, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundations (3).

          Besides insisting “white, feminist females are the enemy” designing all of this trouble, you may not have taken into account the broad history of feminism, and the governance men given over women’s lives.

          To your charge that I am an anti-American tyrant because I believe in responsibility for one’s actions even in the case when divorce is wrongly forced upon a man: the 13 colonies have had child-support laws from the beginning, child support has always been a part of our society and the founders design, and, fortunately, it was enhanced to criminal desertion in the late 1870s.

          The amount of money due a father from the mother or a mother from the father, from 1993 to 2007 statistics is nearly equal, and, in 2007, the difference between support coming from the father of $5,366 and support from the mother of $5,239; the difference being $127, should help alleviate the generalization that women are not held accountable the same as men financially (4); “both parents [do not] share equally in custody matters.”

          Because women are generally paid less than men, these statistics prove the opposite of your claim.

          The highest cumulative rate of divorce in America is among African-Americans. And by percentage of each racial population being divorced, American Indian and Alaska Natives are the highest divorcees (5). Understanding that only 17% of the 113th Congress are women and of them at least 10 are nonwhite, the number changes to 15% to have the kind of influence you claim is destroying this country.

          Further, of these 15%, how many are going to be the feminist you define as ‘life hating, male-race destroying women.’ Once we get the further reduced number, where do these women get the power to satisfy your claim that they dominate abortion, oppressive child-support, and country destroying power?

          Back to some of the specifics, how can the courts decide to favor a father over the mother? They are not that intimately involved until there is evidence against the natural choice. The statistic that illustrates most women receive custody indicates the gravity of divorce, the natural choice, the seriousness of pregnancy—married or unmarried.

          Next, you have insisted upon the “equal right to the care and custody of his children,” but you would be hard-pressed to find two people equal in the terms you are setting forth. Who is going to be able to empirically measure these qualities in the time allotted, but the need for a child’s development is of first importance.

          A primary home and the presence of the primary caregiver are essential for a child’s healthy emotional development (6). Unnecessary emotional strain or trauma before three years old will likely cause irreparable brain damage to the amygdala.

          Asserting that fathers are better suited to raise children is disproven by Ohio State University, concluding that single fathers compared to single mothers are nearly equal in later years of development with the fathers samples exhibiting some extra problems (7).

          Please note, the difference between men and women makes equality impossible in these terms, though not of innate human value but functionally, as performers, commodities, which is why education is so important to hopefully curb divorce.

          Furthermore, you stated that ‘child welfare system is a racket’ and there is a quota “demand[ing] 80% of the time children go to the mothers.” Just looking at a woman cannot you tell, mothers are equipped in ways men are not to support children; and by design, women are the ones who are suited to spend most of the day with children.

          However, you also argue that the system is intended to “extort child-support from fathers.” Child-support is a responsibility providentially given to protect children and women and sometimes fathers.

          And, because we live in a world of people who would rather not be responsible, child-support is a blessing of protection. I recall: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (8), and “[…] children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children” (9).

          And, lastly, the heart of these laws are righteous and kindhearted. “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God” (10).

          Though there is undoubtedly thievery amongst them all, government and civilian. Strip our country of these obligations and we will soon fall into the same judgment as Old Testament Israel because the heart of mankind easily rejects godly wisdom.

          I am aware you asked me not to respond after questioning and attacking me, but I will not to oblige you on such important matters in a public forum. However, if you want me not to respond, simply ignore my contribution.

          Blessings to you; to you and yours blessings in Christ. Because I feel your frustration and I understand, I will be praying for you.

          Sincerely, Joseph C. Carbone III; 26 August 2013


  • Mark Robert

    It’s a travesty of justice when left-wing ‘Anti-European’ Zionist gun grabbers endanger our Republic by cloaking themselves as concerned citizens’ to usurp our
    Constitutional Freedoms.

    More than 8.5 million Americans legally carry concealed handguns.

    Concealed Carry gun owners are sitting next to us in restaurants, movie theaters and stores.

    Permit holders are law abiding, committing firearms violations at a rate of hundredths of 1% per year.