Friday, November 23, 2012

Is Satan The God of This World?

Good article by Gary DeMar of

And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us.

The prince of darkness grim we tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo! his doom is sure, one little word shall fell him. [1]

Christians will use all types of excuses to keep themselves out of today’s religious-moral-cultural battles. One of the most diabolical excuses is to claim that Satan is the rightful god of this world. This translates into believing that this world is demonic. Let’s see what the Bible actually says about this.

Satan is a creature. Like all creatures, he has certain limitations. Even under the Old Covenant, Satan had to be granted permission by God before he could act (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). Satan’s limitations have been multiplied since the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.

The Bible shows us that if we “resist the devil he will flee from” us (James 4:7). The only power that Satan has over the Christian is the power we give him and the power granted to him by God (2 Cor. 12:7-12). Scripture tells us that Satan is defeated, disarmed, and spoiled (Col. 2:15; Rev. 12:7; Mark 3:27). He has “fallen” (Luke 10:18) and was “thrown down” (Rev. 12:9). He was “crushed” under the feet of the early Christians, and by implication, under the feet of all Christians throughout the ages (Rom. 16:20). He has lost “authority” over Christians (Col. 1:13). He has been “judged” (John 16:11). He cannot “touch” a Christian (1 John 5:18). His works have been destroyed (1 John 3:8). He has “nothing” (John 14:30). He must “flee” when “resisted” (James 4:7). He is “bound” (Mark 3:27; Luke 11:20). Finally, the gates of hell “shall not overpower” the advancing church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18).[2] Surely Satan is alive, but he is not well on planet earth.

So then, what does Paul mean when he describes Satan as “the god of this world,” actually, “of this age”? (2 Cor. 4:4). To hear some people tell it, this verse teaches that Satan has all power and authority in this dispensation and in the locale of planet earth. Where God is the God of heaven and of the age to come, Satan is the god of this world and this present evil age. This dualistic view of the universe may be part of Greek philosophy, but it has no place in biblical theology.

While it’s true that the devil is said to be the god of this age,[3] we know that God is “the King of the ages” (1 Tim. 1:17). Paul is simply stating that Satan is the chosen god of those who deny Jesus as God’s rightful heir of all things (Matt. 22:1-14). These are the true antichrists (2 John 2:7; 1 John 2:18). Jesus is in possession of “all authority,” in both heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18-20). In addition, we know that Satan’s power has not increased since Job’s day. He is still a permission-seeking creature. This is especially true under the new and better covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ. As the above verses make clear, Satan is a second-class creature who has been cast out and judged: “The ruler of this world shall be cast out” (John 12:31); “the ruler of this world has been judged” (16:11).

What, then, does the apostle mean when he describes Satan as “the god of this age”? First, we must never allow one passage to finalize our understanding of a particular doctrine. Scripture must be compared with Scripture. There are no contradictions. Therefore, we can’t have the Bible saying of the one true God, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5) and then making Satan a rival god. Paul must have something else in mind. We can’t say that Satan has been judged and cast out, something that does not happen to gods, and still maintain that he is the god of this world similar to the way Jehovah is God of this world. Paul is making a theological point. For example, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the devil is their father (John 8:44). We know that Satan is not their biological father. Rather, he is their spiritual father in that they rejected their true Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Physically these Jews, to be sure, are children of Abraham; but spiritually and morally–and that was the issue–they are the children of the devil.[4]

Jesus is describing the devil as one who gives birth to a worldview, a worldview that includes lying and murder. In this sense, Satan is their spiritual father. In the same way, Satan is a god to those who cling to the fading glory of Moses, “the ministry of death” (2 Cor. 3:7). This is the age over which he is a god, an age that “has no glory on account of the glory that surpasses it” (v. 10).

Second, the devil is chosen as a god by “those who are perishing,” and he must blind them before they will follow him: “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). This passage teaches that unbelievers are fooled into believing that “the old covenant” where the “veil remains unlifted” is the way to life (v. 14). Satan is the god of the “ministry of death.” The “god of this age” keeps them in bondage, “but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (v. 16). Liberty from the ministry of death only comes where the Spirit of Lord is: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (v. 17). But Satan has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving so they cannot see the lifted veil. They are still trusting in the shadows of the Old Covenant.

Third, like idols in general, the devil is “by nature” not a god (Gal. 4:8; cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 96:5; Isa. 44:9-20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:20). This includes the devil. In Philippians 3:19, Paul tells us that those who are “enemies of the cross of Christ” worship “their appetite”: “For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is there appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.” The appetite is not a god, but it can be chosen as a god.

Fourth, the only way Satan can pass himself off as a god is to first blind his victims. Keep in mind that Jesus described the devil as “a liar, and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Though Satan masquerades as a god, this does make him a god.

Satan wishes, albeit vainly, to set himself up as God, and sinners, in rebelling against the true God, subject themselves to him who is the author of their rebellion. The unregenerate serve Satan as though he were their God. They do not thereby, however, escape from the dominion of the one true God. On the contrary, they bring themselves under His righteous judgment; for Satan is a creature and not a God to be served (cf. Rom. 1:18, 25). Just as there is one in the world and every pretended alternative to it is a false no-gospel, so there is only one God of the universe and every other “deity” whom men worship and serve is a false no-god.[5]

When all the evidence is in we learn that Satan is the god of an age that was passing away. “This age” and “this world” are used “in an ethical sense,” denoting “the immoral realm of disobedience rather than the all-inclusive, extensive scope of creation,” representing “the life of man apart from God and bound to sinful impulses, a world “ethically separated from God.”[6] Calling Satan the “god of this age” is more a reflection on the condition of “this age” than the real status of the devil. Chrysostom comments that “Scripture frequently uses the term god, not in regard of the dignity that is so designated, but of the weakness of those in subjection to it; as when he calls mammon lord and belly god: but the belly is neither therefore God nor mammon Lord, save only of those who bow themselves to them.”[7]

When the church makes Satan the “god of this age,” it has fallen for one of the devil’s schemes–giving him a lot more credit and power than he deserves. He is quite satisfied in having anyone believe one of his lies.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Why The Republican lost The Presidency

                               Why The Republican lost The Presidency
It never ceases to amaze me when I listen to the Republican establishment and “so called” conservative radio talk show hosts talking about why they lost the presidency, when it’s so simple. And here it is; “Truly conservative Republican, conservative Independents, Libertarians and truly conservative Democrat or Blue Dogs were not interested in voting for a white Obama”. I don’t care if you don’t like it, it’s the truth. Someone I know said “I think the only people who voted for Romney were racists.” After thinking about it, I think he’s right. Except I would add, or else they are undereducated about the two of them.
The GOP had their chance in Ron Paul, but they didn’t want him and even changed the rules at the convention {in other words cheated} to keep him out and that just infuriated the above-mentioned conservatives who no doubt would have voted for Paul. Infuriated them to the point some didn’t vote at all.
Ron Paul inspires extremes. Such maddening support on the one hand, and such fear and loathing on the other. But why? I can give the answer in one word: freedom”.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for, whether it is military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.

Ron Paul didn’t want to be President to "give" me freedom. He doesn't own my freedom and he can’t give it to me. The only reason Ron Paul wanted to be President is to stop punishing people for using the freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak. And that’s why the Republican establishment didn’t want him. He’s a threat to them and their power.

There are two kinds of human beings. Those who want power, and those who want freedom. You can tell which one's which very easily. Those who want freedom are straight-edged, no smoke and mirrors. They are consistent, principled, and you can feel their human soul when they speak to you. And when you come into contact with one of these souls, you know immediately, because souls are by definition free. You sense sincerity, realness, consistency, and a free human being. You get hooked on Ron Paul because you see the ability to be able to use your God-given freedom and it takes you over entirely. It's like you suddenly realize you're human and the Divine Image with which God created you comes alive and catches fire.

But something else happens to you. Once you get hooked on Ron Paul, you can no longer bear to listen to a man who wants power, and you become instantly disgusted when they start saying words. Before, they were just boring. Now they're revolting. Listening to Romney or Obama makes you sick. You see a political veneer in these politicians that's so transparent you can't bear it.

What's so maddening about hearing Romney talk is that there's someone standing there saying things, but there's no soul in it. These are not free men. That is why Romney lost. Both are nothing more than power hungry men. They have practically forfeited their souls to try and attain power, to control others with spin and talking points and contradictory statements like "I want to cut the budget and expand the military!" and they'll say it with a polished tone and a straight face, just like a soulless recording. Their humanity is buried under the mountain of lies they have told themselves.
The reason that Ron Paul never went down in the polls and is more popular than ever is that he's not "convincing" people in the everyday sense that he's right on whatever issue. He's activating human souls, lighting spiritual fires one by one speaking about freedom. Once a soul gets activated, and the man realizes that he IS free no matter what people do to him or tell him, there is no turning back. The other candidates are trying to turn heads with snappy one-liners that sound cool. Slowly but surely, Ron Paul activates a few of the individual souls in the mob as they bob from snappy comeback to snappy comeback and he goes up in popularity. This is what has caused what is how called the Ron Paul Revolution.

But there is a problem. We cannot expect every man, woman and child to understand or get excited about the message of liberty. The reason; most just can't handle it. Being truly free is as terrifying as it is electrifying.

Not everyone can handle the message of freedom. It's too frightening for some people, and some are just too enslaved. Those are the people that despise Ron Paul, the same types who rebelled against Moses in the desert and attempted to go back to Egypt. Freedom is too much for them and they can't handle the Divine gift. They want and need someone to control them. Their souls have been too battered by slavery, taxation, and wars.
So the question it this, which are you? One who says they love freedom or Obama?
The people who don’t support Ron Paul are afraid of freedom. Because it is giving them the opportunity to succeed which also carries with it the possibility of failure. And people don’t want to fail. And that means they don’t want you to succeed either, because it might point to there failure.
But most of all it means responsibility. Responsibility for your family and there safety, health and food. And gun safety. Gun safety means having a gun to protect your family. These people don’t want responsibility and so they don’t want you to taking responsibility either.
And so you see it’s quite simple. Romney is not a conservative and we know it. So the question is, did the Republican establishment and “so called” conservative radio talk show hosts learn their lesson? Its doesn’t look like it so far. But the “Ron Paul Revolution” lives on. One of two things will happen.
The Republican establishment will give us a true conservative or there will be a new party.
Just Sayin’

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Dishonest Politics

This is absolute proof that the Republicans have left the conservatives.
The conservatives will have to realize that they need to roll up their sleeves and fight for a third party.
It is my personal belief that there will be no recovery of the Republican party, because they are on the same team as the Democrats.
It is the same thing as a highschool football team; Democrats are the 1st string, Republicans are the 2nd string, but it's the same team.
The conservatives now have no voice.
The Republicans threw the conservatives under the bus when they threw Ron Paul under the bus.

Do you realize that Ron Paul got more votes in these states in the Primary than Romney got in the election? 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Election is Over…. Now What?

Great article on by Leah Smith

Once upon a time Christians knew what they believed. They knew why they believed it. We often shake our heads at what goes on the world. We don’t like the anti-Christian laws being passed, more government control, our freedoms regulated and the general secularized state of our nation. However we have failed to recognize who dropped the ball. Christians have lost something very basic and precious: the ability to articulate the gospel. Most Christians profess to believe in the Great Commission that Jesus commanded, to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:19)
How do we suppose nations will become discipled if we are unable to give even a reasonable answer for the hope that lies within us? How do we expect to handle confrontations without being blown away by any intelligent worldly answer? 
Furthermore, how do we suppose things will change in our society when for the most part, solutions to problems in the world are coming from the heathens? If Christians aren’t actively contributing to expanding the Kingdom and bringing God’s perfect and timeless law into society, we have no right to shake our heads.
On another note, there are many professing Christians who believe eschatology (the study of future things or “end times”) is interesting, but it doesn’t – or shouldn’t  impact our everyday lives. They have an “only God knows what’s going to happen” mentality, having no regard for the potential consequence it may have on future generations and society at large.
Your eschatology (as indifferent as it may be) affects your worldview, and thus, your actions.  For example, if I believe God is going to rapture me out of the troubles and conflicts of this world, or if the world is predestined to get worse, I won’t bother trying to come up with biblical solutions to a humanistic economic system that my children and grandchildren will have to live with. Why would I think multi-generationally? The heathens understand this and have come up with ways to make money off this type of “now-ism” – see here.
If I don’t think Bible prophecy matters, I also do a disfavor to future generations. How? For one, I am at risk of misinterpreting entire books of the Bible and dozens of passages. That is a problem. If you misinterpret scripture, you are at risk of  misinterpreting God’s will and teaching others (including your children) based upon your misunderstanding. Misinterpretation of scripture can lead to serious deviations from orthodox Christianity and lead to cults. Proper understanding of Scripture is a matter of eternity. If you have the wrong Jesus, you are worshiping a false god. The Mormons do this. Their Jesus is supposedly the same Jesus of Christianity, however, when you delve a little deeper you discover that there is a great deviation from the Bible. The Mormon Jesus is the blood-brother of Satan who was conceived by God and Mary having physical relations. Serving that Jesus could cost you dearly. Interpretation matters. Prophecy is not a salvation matter, but it is extremely important because it is part of the Word of God. It relates His will for us. It relates to our obedience. It affects our understanding of the covenants He has made. It also affects how we interpret the times and how we act upon them.  It affects your children. It affects your grand children and beyond. Don’t you want to know how your every day decisions and actions will affect the future? I do. I want to know that my theology and eschatology is affecting the Kingdom of God in an exponential way. That was how God designed it. 
The bottom line is if your eschatology is anything other than victorious, you are expecting defeat. You ultimately anticipate Christ’s failure in history. What better way to paralyze and neuter the church than to have it believe the world will get worse and eventually be handed over to an “Anti-christ”? Isn’t that a powerful lie? But, you say, the world IS getting worse. That is the thing about self-fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying things are supposed to get worse, continue to disengage, keep preaching from the pulpit that we are not ”of this world”, keep preaching that the earth is Satan’s domain, and that means keeping our hands out, guess what…….. things will get worse! But mostly because we let it. We allowed it. We endorsed it. Then we said it was prophetic. I call that not prophetic, but pathetic.
One of the recurring themes from Genesis to Revelation is God’s continual calling of man to responsibility. We see in history when Christians took their role seriously and engaged as God willed how Christianity shaped and influenced entire cultures as well as the impact it had on modern science and technology, music and the arts.
Consider the influential men of history who had bold faith and a victorious attitude such as Saint Patrick. Though he endured horrible times and afflictions, God used him to convert an entire island with generations of paganism. That was one man in one life span. What would our nation be like if all God’s people changed their bad attitude and stepped into positive action?
That got me thinking about what I could do as a wife and mother. Like many others, when I want to accomplish something, I need a practical action plan. Men don’t go to war thinking “who cares what the enemy is planning, we’ll just let the cards fall where they may” kind of sissy attitude. They have military strategies. They study the enemy and know their weaponry. They have a plan of action. 
Here is my to do list:
#1 Get a biblical worldview. We are secular humanists and we don’t even know it. These days, the only way you haven’t been directly influenced by secular humanism is if you’re Amish – and we could probably learn a few things from them (ie: they’re probably laughing at us in this economic crisis). The Barna Group reports that only 19% of Christians who profess they “have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today” and who “are certain that they will go to Heaven after they die only because they confessed their sins and accepted Christ as their savior” — hold a biblical worldview. Even if you love the Lord with all your heart– statistically, it’s very likely you do not have a biblical worldview. It is imperative we get one. Get some materials from places likeAmericanVisionStrategic Christian Services, and GaryNorth.
#2 Get married and have a family. Atheists can do this too, so it is imperative that we hold a biblical worldview with which we approach every thought, action, decision and idea within the family unit. Why have a family? It is the backbone of society. That is why when you delve into the roots of socialism, you find the strategic intent to destroy Christianity and the family. Do we want a biblical society? Start by having a biblical family. I believe there are very few who have the “gift” of singleness. Find a good mate. Use wisdom. Pop out some kids. Raise up godly, clear-thinking Christians who will take dominion as God commands.
#3  Have children, and if possible, lots of them. The Bible doesn’t suggest that we “be fruitful and multiply”, it commands us to. Having one or two kids is not multiplying; it is not growing the population. That is barely a replacement rate. Meanwhile, the Muslim culture continues to out-populate everyone with an average birth rate of 6 per household. Get busy people. 
#4  Bring up my children with a Christian, bible-based education. If we want to expand the Kingdom, do not, I repeat, do not give our kids away to the government. I cannot be so arrogant as to think I can compete with the humanistic brain washing they receive five days a week.  They are not “salt” or “light” yet, so I mustn’t be pretentious in thinking my one child is going to evangelize or survive a humanist indoctrination centre. That’s like throwing your kid in a shark-infested pool and thinking he’s a good swimmer, so he should be able to make it to the other side, no problem.  There is too much to say on this, but basically, if I am a Christian parent, a Christian education needs to be mandatory. See Voddie BauchamAmerican Vision StoreExodus Mandate.
#5 Get educated in:
Basic apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith):  The Bible doesn’t require us to be experts. However, 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to have a logical answer for the hope that lies within us. The fact that most of us don’t understand logic and reason is beyond pathetic. It’s apathetic. There are some great resources out there for some basic training and education. There are even audio books, so no one has an excuse to be a dumb Christian anymore.
Basic theology: We have a problem. There are atheists that understand our Christian history and theological background better than we do. It is a skewed and distorted version, but it is sad that they know more than many of us. And because we don’t know our own presuppositions (or what that even means), they are formulating new and absurd arguments daily that we can’t refute. That is not good. Not good at all. So learn about presuppositions and learn some basic orthodox Christian doctrine and theology – and even more importantly, why it is truth.
Basic evangelism: I need to learn how to witness. Not hand out a tract, I mean how to present the gospel in a real conversation with people I meet. We don’t see much street witnessing these days since the seeker-sensitive church movement arrived. Instead of telling people that they’re going to hell if they don’t repent, we give them a cappuccino and sing a Beatles song at “church”.  My goal is to learn of the most prevailing religions and cults in my city (where I am it would be atheism, Sikhism, Mormonism, J W’s, etc) and be well read enough that I can carry a conversation with them and understand what it is I am dealing with. I would love to see churches offer classes on the religions in their community and teach their congregations how to talk and witness to their community. Churches ought to teach basic apologetics as it is a good foundation for evangelism.
After I become educated in these things, I need to make sure I’m doing all that I can to raise our kids to understand the points I mentioned.
And finally,
#6  Women, get back in the kitchen! Just kidding. Know your feminine role.
I believe the discipling of the nations will happen quickly when women go back to being women, with joy and celebration. When there is family harmony within a biblical context, and husbands love their wives and are leading as the Bible outlines, societies change. Governments change. Children are back in the hands of their own parents and that affects everything. Yes, sacrifices must be made to make this happen, however, we are in a time that if we want our grand children to live in a nation free of slavery and persecution, it is crucial that we make these sacrifices now.
When we as the church finally have a biblical worldview, a victorious eschatology, a rock-solid family of families, and are coming up with real solutions to problems in the world, the nations will turn their heads and see Christ as the answer for everything, including their own salvation.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Federal Judge OKs Installation of Surveillance Cameras Without a Warrant

On October 29, a federal district court judge ruled that police can enter onto privately owned property and install secret surveillance cameras without a warrant.
The judge did set forth a few guidelines that must be followed before such activity would be permissible, but the fact that such a scenario is accepted as constitutional by a federal judge is a serious setback for privacy and for the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A report published by CNet provides background to this crucial constitutional ruling:
Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked [U.S. Magistrate Judge William] Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.
Earlier, Drug Enforcement Agency officers walked around the rural property and installed several strategically placed “covert digital surveillance cameras.” Agents entered the land — land they knew to be privately owned — without permission and without a search warrant, in apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment.
U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach held that the officers’ behavior was reasonable. In coming to this constitutionally suspect conclusion, Griesbach followed the recommendation put forth in an earlier ruling on the case made by Judge Callahan.
Commenting on the genesis of the decision, Ars Technica reported:
The property in question was heavily wooded, with a locked gate and "no trespassing" signs to notify strangers that they were unwelcome. But the judges found that this did not establish the "reasonable expectation of privacy" required for Fourth Amendment protection. In their view, such a rule would mean that (in the words of a key 1984 Supreme Court precedent) "police officers would have to guess before every search whether landowners had erected fences sufficiently high, posted a sufficient number of warning signs, or located contraband in an area sufficiently secluded to establish a right of privacy."
The 1984 Supreme Court decision referred to is the case of Oliver v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the justices cited the Court’s earlier decision in Hester v. United States in which the Court found that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit police from entering and searching an “open field” without a warrant.
Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled:
That doctrine was founded upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment, whose special protection accorded to "persons houses, papers, and effects" does "not exten[d] to the open fields." Hester v. United States, supra, at 265 U. S. 59. Open fields are not "effects" within the meaning of the Amendment, the term "effects" being less inclusive than "property," and not encompassing open fields. The government's intrusion upon open fields is not one of those "unreasonable searches" proscribed by the Amendment. 
Relying on that pair of high court rulings, attorneys representing the federal government argued that "placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
This ruling in Wisconsin is but the latest battle in the federal government’s war on the Fourth Amendment.
In June, the federal government informed an appeals court that it has the right and the power to place GPS tracking devices on the privately owned vehicles of citizens without obtaining a warrant. This is in open rebellion to a Supreme Court decision from January that held that such warrantless installation of tracking devices on cars was unconstitutional.
In a case being heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Obama administration argued that since the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t specifically mandate the obtaining of a search warrant in all situations, then the justices intended to leave a loophole open — a loophole large enough to mount a tracking device.
According to the Justice Department’s spokesperson, “A warrant is not needed for a GPS search, as the [Supreme] Court … did not resolve that question.” As quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department has “advised agents and prosecutors going forward to take the most prudent steps and obtain a warrant for new or ongoing investigations,” just in case.
This sort of circular reasoning is commonplace in Washington. The federal government claims that warrants are unnecessary, yet insists that its minions attempt to obtain them. This is precisely the vagueness and double talk that creates chaos and throws up a smokescreen behind which the palladium of American civil liberties is destroyed.
In fairness, the Supreme Court bears a portion of the blame for this confusion. The decision handed down in January in the case of the United States v. Jones left several critical constitutional questions unanswered — perhaps purposely so.
Of course, as constitutionalists are aware, there is no need for the Supreme Court to sit as the ultimate arbiter of what does and does not conform to constitutional standards. 
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist, no. 33:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
That is to say, when the federal government enacts a measure purporting to be the law of the land, but that act is unconstitutional, it is merely a usurpation and of no force whatsoever.
Unfortunately, for generations Americans have been trained to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on issues of constitutional validity, and so it has gladly assumed that role.
The case of when agents of the federal government “legally” may attach a satellite-based tracking device to the car of a suspect is one of the areas now under the purview of the high court.
The Obama administration opened another theatre of operations when it filed a document on September 4 in the D.C. District Court. In the pleading, the president argues that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a person’s cellphone GPS data. The president’s lawyers argue that they do not need a warrant to request cellphone company records regarding a customer’s movements and location as tracked by their signal towers.
In its argument against a motion filed to suppress the government’s use of a defendant’s cellphone location data, the Obama administration claims that the customer tracking records kept by cellphone service providers are no different from other business-related “third-party records” such as store receipts and bank account statements, and customers have no legal basis for any additional expectation of privacy.
The feds are making their case for warrantless tracking of citizens in a re-trial of the Jones case.
After the original decision by the Supreme Court to throw out the case against Jones, lawyers for the federal government are shifting their focus to Jones’s cellphone tracking data.
Wired describes the decision and the White House’s reaction:
The Supreme Court tossed that GPS data, along with Jones’ conviction and life term on Jan. 23 in one of the biggest cases in recent years combining technology and the Fourth Amendment.
“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-justice majority.
That decision, the Obama administration claimed, is “wholly inapplicable” when it comes to cell-site data.
The Obama administration continues making that point in its latest legal defense of warrantless surveillance:
A customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records that were never in the possession of the customer. When a cell phone user transmits a signal to a cell tower for his call to be connected, he thereby assumes the risk that the cell phone provider will create its own internal record of which of the company’s towers handles the call. Thus, it makes no difference if some users have never thought about how their cell phones work; a cell phone user can have no expectation of privacy in cell-site information.
Sadly, such baffling arguments are the norm in this post-Patriot Act era. Under the applicable provisions of that despotic decree, the location of cellphones and the content of e-mails may be tracked, tagged, and saved by police and federal law enforcement without a search warrant.
“That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," wrote Brett Reetz, Magana's attorney, as reported by CNet. "The owner and his guest ... had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy."
A jury is scheduled to hear the case on January 22, 2013.

blog design by Paperback Designs