Comments On Judge Napolitano's Questioning Commentary
Source of Napolitano's commentary; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html?ref=yfp
>
Judge Napolitano raises some very important questions concerning Hillary Clinton, The Department of Justice, Obama, The FBI, and Libya. Putting all this together, he makes a strong case with related circumstantial evidence for the probability that the FIX was in to keep Hillary from facing charges unless she losses the Election and becomes vulnerable. I am going to try and comment on each of Judge Napolitano's comments.
>
My comments will be in Parenthesis and Italic to distinguish them from the Judges. Although Judge Napolitano did not mention it, What if the rumors about Hillary possibly appointing Obama to the Supreme Court should she become President have impacted on the decision to not press charges?
>
What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?
>
" I believe that if the DOJ were to be told that, and because of it's seemingly partisan affiliation with Obama's Socialistic agenda, The head of that department would accede to the requests of her political boss (Obama) and agree to not prosecute if the FBI would not recommend prosecution. As for the FBI it seems 'Prima Facie' that the head of that department has followed the orders of his political boss (Obama) and made a 180 degree shift on the evaluation as compared to what he recommended on the similar but less critical Petraeus case. That being what it is, I have to agree with Napolitano in the validity of his question about the espionage angle being implied as what was being suppressed to make the call of no recommendation to prosecute by the FBI."
>
What if President Obama never really liked his former rival whom he appointed as his secretary of state? What if he had no real interest in seeing her succeed him because he and his wife simply could never trust her?
>
" I believe this is not only possible considering the schism that erupted between them in his first bid for President, but that it is actually probable he may feel that way."
>
What if, when Clinton suggested to the president that the U.S. wage a secret undeclared war against Libya, the president went along with it as a no-lose proposition? What if he assumed that if her secret war succeeded he’d get the credit and if her secret war failed she would get the blame?
>
" This fits in completely with past practices of Presidents since the FDR administration war years. It's proper name and designation is (Plausible Deniability) and it is regularly used by agencies like the CIA to protect the public image of a President."
>
What if the means of fighting the secret war consisted of employing intelligence assets rather than the U.S. military? What if Clinton concocted that idea because the use of the military requires a public reporting to the entire Congress but the use of intelligence assets requires only a secret reporting to a dozen members of Congress?
>
"Strangely enough this is a normal practice in our Government since the end of WWII, so why wouldn't it be used to keep the public in the dark about such clandestine operations. This is Standard OPS for the CIA,ONI,etc."
>
What if Clinton expanded her war by permitting American and foreign arms dealers to bypass the NATO arms embargo on Libya by selling heavy-duty, military-grade arms directly to militias in Libya? What if this was Clinton’s dream scenario -- an apparent civil war in Libya in which the victorious side was secretly armed by the U.S., with democracy brought to the country and Clinton the architect of it all?
>
"Since the breaking of the story behind 'Fast & Furious' and the resultant cover up through refusal to release documentation on it by Obama, why would it be so hard to believe this is just another fiasco in the making?"
>
What if the CIA warned Clinton that this would backfire? What if the CIA told her that she was arming not pro-Western militias but anti-American terrorist groups? What if she rejected all that advice? What if providing material assistance to terrorist groups is a felony? What if the Department of Political Justice actually obtained an indictment of an American arms dealer for going along with Clinton’s schemes?
>
" This in my estimation is also part and parcel of the plausible deniability process that protects the president and politicians doing things secretly sanctioned by the president."
>
What if Clinton’s secret war in Libya was a disaster? What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?
>
"You just have to look at the mess in the middle east that the Obama administration hath wrought through either ineptitude or design, and you can answer that one yourself."
>
What if Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?
>
" I'll hold off commenting on this one until Guccifer or Putin releases more of those 'Lost or Deleted' E-Mails which were hacked off her server."
>
What if Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?
>
"In that case I would expect the government to do some sort of damage control with the Public, because it would already be too late to block what the foreign governments had already gained access to. Similar to the 'VIDEO" being the cause of the Benghazi Islamic Terrorist Attack."
>
What if there were terrible secrets that Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and non-government-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?
>
" The simple answer to this is to go to Guccifer's site and look at the released e-mails he has opened up about the Clinton Foundation, or go to Open Secrets to see the money trail there."
>
What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?
>
" I would say this is possible, but to what end other than figuring out how much damage control would be needed to offset what Hillary had done, and if it had been done deliberately for some other purpose. He would have had to have been in on it from the beginning because nothing happens in politics by accident."
>
What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?
>
"We have all been following that timeline, so we all can make our own informed decision about this potential and believable political scenario."
>
What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?
>
" Again, Guccifer has released documentation that supports that theory, but only the Obama Administration knows for sure. However based on the circumstantial evidence, past practice of the FBI in similar cases, I BELIEVE IT IS SO!"
>
What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Clinton?
>
"Some Agents did say they were uncharacteristically ordered to sign Non Disclosure agreements about the content of their investigations. This is a smoking gun. I could see it as part of an active investigation into anything so the investigation would not be corrupted or the principles in that investigation be made aware of findings before charges were made, bur not after it was concluded because it then with few national security considerations it becomes public domain information."
>
What if the Department of Political Justice never subpoenaed anything from Clinton? What if it never convened a grand jury to seek and hear evidence against her? What if the FBI requires a grand jury to subpoena documents and tangible things? What if it is highly irregular for a major FBI criminal investigation to be undertaken without a grand jury?
>
"In that case it would definitely smell like a deliberate cover up."
>
What if the attorney general was involved in a publicity stunt with Clinton’s husband and then used that stunt as an excuse to remove herself and her top aides from making decisions in the case? What if this was a sham, done so as to make it appear that FBI professionals -- rather than someone politically motivated, such as the president or the attorney general -- were calling the shots in the case?
>
" Everyone knows that the FBI works for the DOJ, and since the death of Hoover,it has become subject to the whims of the party in power and is under that Party's direct control. So that is an extremely plausible situation."
>
What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office? What if this blatant political interference with a criminal investigation is itself a crime? What if, midstream in this criminal investigation, the fix was put in?
>
"This would fit in with the speculation about Obama 'Fundamentally Changing America' as evidenced by his actions and edicts so far."
>
What do we do about it?
>
" Here's what I think we MUST do about it;
Not Hillary for any reason.
>
From there Vett and vote for the best candidates who are running,and who are the most Conservative and Constitutionally inclined and oriented. This needs to be expanded to EVERY election. Congressional, State Legislatures, and even Local offices. From there we will need to start petitioning our State Legislators to call for a 'States Petitioned For Article V Amendment proposal Convention' where the People, through their State Legislatures, can propose the Repeal of the 14th,16th,17th amendments to flip the Constitution back to what it was originally intended to do, Namely;Keep the Federal Government subservient to the People. It could also be used to reformulate the 14th should the people not want it repealed completely, to guarantee Due Process for every American Citizen and remove the other uses for which the original 14th has been corrupted or misinterpreted as covering over the intervening years.
>
A simple declaration for the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment would be something like this:
[ Every Citizen is guaranteed Due Process and Equal Treatment Under The Law, to insure EQUAL JUSTICE for all.
>
Furthermore, Every American Citizen over the age of majority, is guaranteed the Right to Vote. States Will insure, 'Only American Citizens' are allowed to vote in elections, and 'Will Require' on the first registering of the Voter, that the Voter produce a valid Birth Certificate or other Official Government Document (Naturalization Papers) that legally and properly attests to their Birthplace and American Citizenship. All Voter registrations MUST be kept on file, and updated regularly on a yearly basis three months before the first elections of that calendar year.
>
From that point on, a valid voter registration card with picture ID incorporated, and which picture is regularly updated like a drivers license, MUST be used to verify the voter is who they claim to be at the polls, and also to facilitate Transfer of Registration from one District to Another, or from one State to Another when the Voter moves. The Registering agencies will be held legally accountable to correct their voter registration files both to remove a voter from the rolls who has moved or died, and to notify the District or State that a voter from the previous District or State has re-registered. The agency in charge of issuing Death Certificates is REQUIRED to send official notification to the State Elections Commissions of a voters Demise, and in turn the Elections Commission must notify the District of that voters demise requiring them to mark that voter as deceased on their records.
>
This Amendment does NOT convey citizenship to babies born of foreign parents illegally in this Country at the time of the child's birth,those children may at the age of 18 years, and through their own actions petition for Citizenship like any other foreign national.
>
Neither will Illegal Aliens or NON-Citizens be counted in the Decennial census for purposes of apportionment or Re-apportionment of House District nor for consideration in the size of the Electoral College.
>
This Amendment Does convey Full Natural Born Citizenship, to children of a Parent or Parents, and who are in the legal process of becoming American Citizens, and Immediately on that Parent or Parents being sworn in as American Citizens.
>
This includes those children being given Immediate naturalized Citizenship, whose parents who were in the country illegally during the birth,and who are now in the Legal Process of becoming American Citizens and as soon as those parents are sworn in as American Citizens.
>
The due process of this amendment shall be extended to unborn children to prevent their Partial Birth Abortions except in cases where by determination of a panel of medical doctors, it is determined that the pregnancy is potentially going to kill or irreparably physically damage the mother. Other abortion legislation will have to be determined by legislation with the preponderance of testimony, for or against it, be decided by women themselves.
>
These are to be the limits of the intent of the 14th Amendment but it shall be used also to guarantee the original intent of Constitutional checks and balances are restored]
>
I'll leave you with this question; Why is it so hard to process any information on the E-mails asked for in an FOIA suit by the RNC for E-mail records? Is State stonewalling saying that it would take 75 years to comply with the RNC request? Remember these are Electronic records not a file cabinet search. Why is there only problems producing the information when it would expose the Democrats, the Administration, or the Clinton actions?
These are solely my personal opinions,
The Tradesman
>
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
>
Judge Napolitano raises some very important questions concerning Hillary Clinton, The Department of Justice, Obama, The FBI, and Libya. Putting all this together, he makes a strong case with related circumstantial evidence for the probability that the FIX was in to keep Hillary from facing charges unless she losses the Election and becomes vulnerable. I am going to try and comment on each of Judge Napolitano's comments.
>
My comments will be in Parenthesis and Italic to distinguish them from the Judges. Although Judge Napolitano did not mention it, What if the rumors about Hillary possibly appointing Obama to the Supreme Court should she become President have impacted on the decision to not press charges?
>
What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?
>
" I believe that if the DOJ were to be told that, and because of it's seemingly partisan affiliation with Obama's Socialistic agenda, The head of that department would accede to the requests of her political boss (Obama) and agree to not prosecute if the FBI would not recommend prosecution. As for the FBI it seems 'Prima Facie' that the head of that department has followed the orders of his political boss (Obama) and made a 180 degree shift on the evaluation as compared to what he recommended on the similar but less critical Petraeus case. That being what it is, I have to agree with Napolitano in the validity of his question about the espionage angle being implied as what was being suppressed to make the call of no recommendation to prosecute by the FBI."
>
What if President Obama never really liked his former rival whom he appointed as his secretary of state? What if he had no real interest in seeing her succeed him because he and his wife simply could never trust her?
>
" I believe this is not only possible considering the schism that erupted between them in his first bid for President, but that it is actually probable he may feel that way."
>
What if, when Clinton suggested to the president that the U.S. wage a secret undeclared war against Libya, the president went along with it as a no-lose proposition? What if he assumed that if her secret war succeeded he’d get the credit and if her secret war failed she would get the blame?
>
" This fits in completely with past practices of Presidents since the FDR administration war years. It's proper name and designation is (Plausible Deniability) and it is regularly used by agencies like the CIA to protect the public image of a President."
>
What if the means of fighting the secret war consisted of employing intelligence assets rather than the U.S. military? What if Clinton concocted that idea because the use of the military requires a public reporting to the entire Congress but the use of intelligence assets requires only a secret reporting to a dozen members of Congress?
>
"Strangely enough this is a normal practice in our Government since the end of WWII, so why wouldn't it be used to keep the public in the dark about such clandestine operations. This is Standard OPS for the CIA,ONI,etc."
>
What if Clinton expanded her war by permitting American and foreign arms dealers to bypass the NATO arms embargo on Libya by selling heavy-duty, military-grade arms directly to militias in Libya? What if this was Clinton’s dream scenario -- an apparent civil war in Libya in which the victorious side was secretly armed by the U.S., with democracy brought to the country and Clinton the architect of it all?
>
"Since the breaking of the story behind 'Fast & Furious' and the resultant cover up through refusal to release documentation on it by Obama, why would it be so hard to believe this is just another fiasco in the making?"
>
What if the CIA warned Clinton that this would backfire? What if the CIA told her that she was arming not pro-Western militias but anti-American terrorist groups? What if she rejected all that advice? What if providing material assistance to terrorist groups is a felony? What if the Department of Political Justice actually obtained an indictment of an American arms dealer for going along with Clinton’s schemes?
>
" This in my estimation is also part and parcel of the plausible deniability process that protects the president and politicians doing things secretly sanctioned by the president."
>
What if Clinton’s secret war in Libya was a disaster? What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?
>
"You just have to look at the mess in the middle east that the Obama administration hath wrought through either ineptitude or design, and you can answer that one yourself."
>
What if Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?
>
" I'll hold off commenting on this one until Guccifer or Putin releases more of those 'Lost or Deleted' E-Mails which were hacked off her server."
>
What if Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?
>
"In that case I would expect the government to do some sort of damage control with the Public, because it would already be too late to block what the foreign governments had already gained access to. Similar to the 'VIDEO" being the cause of the Benghazi Islamic Terrorist Attack."
>
What if there were terrible secrets that Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and non-government-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?
>
" The simple answer to this is to go to Guccifer's site and look at the released e-mails he has opened up about the Clinton Foundation, or go to Open Secrets to see the money trail there."
>
What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?
>
" I would say this is possible, but to what end other than figuring out how much damage control would be needed to offset what Hillary had done, and if it had been done deliberately for some other purpose. He would have had to have been in on it from the beginning because nothing happens in politics by accident."
>
What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?
>
"We have all been following that timeline, so we all can make our own informed decision about this potential and believable political scenario."
>
What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?
>
" Again, Guccifer has released documentation that supports that theory, but only the Obama Administration knows for sure. However based on the circumstantial evidence, past practice of the FBI in similar cases, I BELIEVE IT IS SO!"
>
What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Clinton?
>
"Some Agents did say they were uncharacteristically ordered to sign Non Disclosure agreements about the content of their investigations. This is a smoking gun. I could see it as part of an active investigation into anything so the investigation would not be corrupted or the principles in that investigation be made aware of findings before charges were made, bur not after it was concluded because it then with few national security considerations it becomes public domain information."
>
What if the Department of Political Justice never subpoenaed anything from Clinton? What if it never convened a grand jury to seek and hear evidence against her? What if the FBI requires a grand jury to subpoena documents and tangible things? What if it is highly irregular for a major FBI criminal investigation to be undertaken without a grand jury?
>
"In that case it would definitely smell like a deliberate cover up."
>
What if the attorney general was involved in a publicity stunt with Clinton’s husband and then used that stunt as an excuse to remove herself and her top aides from making decisions in the case? What if this was a sham, done so as to make it appear that FBI professionals -- rather than someone politically motivated, such as the president or the attorney general -- were calling the shots in the case?
>
" Everyone knows that the FBI works for the DOJ, and since the death of Hoover,it has become subject to the whims of the party in power and is under that Party's direct control. So that is an extremely plausible situation."
>
What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office? What if this blatant political interference with a criminal investigation is itself a crime? What if, midstream in this criminal investigation, the fix was put in?
>
"This would fit in with the speculation about Obama 'Fundamentally Changing America' as evidenced by his actions and edicts so far."
>
What do we do about it?
>
" Here's what I think we MUST do about it;
Not Hillary for any reason.
>
From there Vett and vote for the best candidates who are running,and who are the most Conservative and Constitutionally inclined and oriented. This needs to be expanded to EVERY election. Congressional, State Legislatures, and even Local offices. From there we will need to start petitioning our State Legislators to call for a 'States Petitioned For Article V Amendment proposal Convention' where the People, through their State Legislatures, can propose the Repeal of the 14th,16th,17th amendments to flip the Constitution back to what it was originally intended to do, Namely;Keep the Federal Government subservient to the People. It could also be used to reformulate the 14th should the people not want it repealed completely, to guarantee Due Process for every American Citizen and remove the other uses for which the original 14th has been corrupted or misinterpreted as covering over the intervening years.
>
A simple declaration for the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment would be something like this:
[ Every Citizen is guaranteed Due Process and Equal Treatment Under The Law, to insure EQUAL JUSTICE for all.
>
Furthermore, Every American Citizen over the age of majority, is guaranteed the Right to Vote. States Will insure, 'Only American Citizens' are allowed to vote in elections, and 'Will Require' on the first registering of the Voter, that the Voter produce a valid Birth Certificate or other Official Government Document (Naturalization Papers) that legally and properly attests to their Birthplace and American Citizenship. All Voter registrations MUST be kept on file, and updated regularly on a yearly basis three months before the first elections of that calendar year.
>
From that point on, a valid voter registration card with picture ID incorporated, and which picture is regularly updated like a drivers license, MUST be used to verify the voter is who they claim to be at the polls, and also to facilitate Transfer of Registration from one District to Another, or from one State to Another when the Voter moves. The Registering agencies will be held legally accountable to correct their voter registration files both to remove a voter from the rolls who has moved or died, and to notify the District or State that a voter from the previous District or State has re-registered. The agency in charge of issuing Death Certificates is REQUIRED to send official notification to the State Elections Commissions of a voters Demise, and in turn the Elections Commission must notify the District of that voters demise requiring them to mark that voter as deceased on their records.
>
This Amendment does NOT convey citizenship to babies born of foreign parents illegally in this Country at the time of the child's birth,those children may at the age of 18 years, and through their own actions petition for Citizenship like any other foreign national.
>
Neither will Illegal Aliens or NON-Citizens be counted in the Decennial census for purposes of apportionment or Re-apportionment of House District nor for consideration in the size of the Electoral College.
>
This Amendment Does convey Full Natural Born Citizenship, to children of a Parent or Parents, and who are in the legal process of becoming American Citizens, and Immediately on that Parent or Parents being sworn in as American Citizens.
>
This includes those children being given Immediate naturalized Citizenship, whose parents who were in the country illegally during the birth,and who are now in the Legal Process of becoming American Citizens and as soon as those parents are sworn in as American Citizens.
>
The due process of this amendment shall be extended to unborn children to prevent their Partial Birth Abortions except in cases where by determination of a panel of medical doctors, it is determined that the pregnancy is potentially going to kill or irreparably physically damage the mother. Other abortion legislation will have to be determined by legislation with the preponderance of testimony, for or against it, be decided by women themselves.
>
These are to be the limits of the intent of the 14th Amendment but it shall be used also to guarantee the original intent of Constitutional checks and balances are restored]
>
I'll leave you with this question; Why is it so hard to process any information on the E-mails asked for in an FOIA suit by the RNC for E-mail records? Is State stonewalling saying that it would take 75 years to comply with the RNC request? Remember these are Electronic records not a file cabinet search. Why is there only problems producing the information when it would expose the Democrats, the Administration, or the Clinton actions?
These are solely my personal opinions,
The Tradesman
>
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
Hillary's Lies Exposed Under Sworn Testimony.
The above video included per the Fair Usage Act for Educational Purposes.
It is my considered Opinion that should Hillary become President she will set up the United States as a Personally Controlled Criminal Enterprise, to benefit her and her progeny. This Treatise is in the Editorial Section and on my page because as pointed out to me by Mangus Colorado; She HAS and IS violating the Constitution. Taking quid pro quo when Bill gave a speech and she as Secretary Of State, gave approvals that Bills speech got the money for.
Here are my reasons;
First; Transcript of the Sworn Testimony before Congress between Gowdey and FBI Director Comey about Hillary's Veracity in past testimony; at a House hearing with Comey under oath, the Gowdy-Comey exchange exposed lies Hillary herself is on record of telling Congress under oath:
Gowdy: Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Not true?
Comey: Right.
Gowdy: Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails. . . . Was that true?
Comey: That's not true.
Gowdy: Clinton said [she] didn't email any classified material to anyone. . . . True?
Comey: There was classified material emailed.
Gowdy: [She] said that she used just one device. True?
Comey: She used multiple devices.
Gowdy: [She] said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. True?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: [She] said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails. . . . True?
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails. . . . Whether they were deleted . . . or something happened to them, there's no doubt that there were work-related emails . . . removed electronically from the email system. [Translation: not true.]
Gowdy: [She] said her lawyers read every one of the emails [individually before deleting any of them]. True?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: False, exculpatory statements—they are used for what?
Comey: Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution?
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: Right.
In spite of that exchange showing at the very least Malfeasance on the part of Hillary, and for some as yet unknown reason, Comey's official recommendation to the DOJ advocated NO criminal charges for Hillary!
Lets take some other verifiable instances when Hillary lied;
1. In a face to face meeting with families of the CIA commando's killed trying to protect Ambassador Stevens, she deliberately lied to them and said the attack was a direct result of an Anti-Islam Video when she positively knew that statement wasn't true. She could have said we are investigating it and given her condolences without compromising anything our intelligence community knew or was investigating. Instead she chose to lie.
2. She is a very skillful and I personally believe she is a compulsive liar. This goes back to the Watergate investigation. House Judiciary Committee's Chief of Staff Jerry Zeifman who was Hillary's Supervisor Stated to Dan Calabreese of North Star newspaper syndicate that " Hillary engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.” Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association. Later,(4/4/2008) Zeifman was asked in an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, "You fired her [Clinton], didn't you?" Zeifman responded, "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who we no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."
3. On just the e-mail issue alone Hillary's Lies are, have been, and judging by lifelong practices will continue to be the way she conducts business, the disregard for National Security, and the allegations of her using Foreign Policy for personal gain makes her unfit for the Presidency. Comey spared Clinton the criminal prosecution for treating classified emails so cavalierly. He was unforgiving in discussing her approach to "very sensitive, highly classified information." indicating it was just short of an indictment. Comey said Clinton emails with "Top Secret/Special Access" information—the truly sensitive stuff—were less protected than they would have been "with a commercial service like Gmail." Consider the 8 notebooks that Gen Petraeus gave to Pamela Broadwell as research material for a book she was writing. Nothing was included in the book and even then most of the information was already in the public domain. Cormey recommended Felony charges against Petraeus and Petraeus eventually plead guilty to a misdemeanor. See the juxtaposition? Old Information that was not used caused the FBI to recommend Felony charges on Petraeus, and new critical classified TOP/SECRET information mishandled by Hillary NO criminal charges recommended, not even misdemeanor charges. WHY?
4. FBI testimony indicated "No Direct Evidence" Hillary's account being hacked but he did specify that others who were in constant contact through her account were hacked. "Guccifer" had no trouble hacking and copying her emails, so why would the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Ali Khamenei have trouble tapping in from the start of the Obama administration when Hillary's e-mail domain was known and apparent. Or considering the fact she used it unsecured outside the US in the countries of our ADVERSARIES said Comey, and also we know who they are.
5. Considering that statement from Comey, David Sanger of the New York Times Opined; The "Lack of clear evidence of hacking gave a clear signal to experts and government investigators that her email likely "had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work." Still no recommendation of criminal charges, WHY?
6. The Clintons together constructed a means ( The Clinton foundation" ) the same foundation that Peter Schweizer cited in his book " Clinton Cash" examined in detail and found out how it was a primary method for the Clintons to use Foreign Policy to their financial advantage. He found out if an entity donated to the Foundation or hired Billy to speak, good things happened for them. The dollar amount cited for the years 2001- 2014 was $229,319,855 and that "Foundation structure" allowed Foreign Governments, Foreign Businesses, and Foreign Financiers to gain 'access' to Politicians even though Federal Election Law prohibits 'Foreign Entities' from donating to American Political Campaigns and their Super-PACS. With the 'Foundation' those entities could go around the laws.
7. Following up on the "Foundation', Politifact confirmed that Bill Clinton's speaking fees took a meteoric rise when Hillary became Secretary of State. To name a few instances;
Two Speeches in Nigeria $700,ooo each.
A speech at Swedish Telecom Company Ericsson $700,000.
Thirteen Speeches for a Hong Cong Company @ $500.000 each.
All this happened from 2001 when he vacated the Oval Office and went on until 2013, when Hillary left as Secretary of State. Thirteen of those speeches by Bill was during the time Hillary was Secretary of State. That alone gives the impression of corruption whether or not it in fact happened, and politics is all about impressions of the politician.
8. There are other instances of the Clinton's making money off of their holding High Offices;
Bill received $16.5 million from Laureate International Industries as their Honorary Chancellor for five years of that online diploma mill, so you can imagine the profits that company made during those five years. It's legal, but is it moral and honorable for a retired president to blatantly sell himself for such things? By the way, Laureate receives $55 million in State Department Grants during Hillary's term as Secretary of State and Bill's honorary Chancellorship. That was only one of the reputed deals in Russia, India, Columbia, and Africa. The Clinton "Foundation" seems more and more like a pay for play quasi-legal and contemptible personal finance enhancing enterprise than the "Charity" it is reputed to be. Is financially enhancing your personal lifestyle considered a "Charity"?
9. The "Foundation" signed a disclosure document to disclose any foreign 'Donations' during Hillary's Secretary of State Position. Even John Kerry asked why the "Foundation" needed to take in 'Foreign Donations'. Kerry publicly speculated; "If you're traveling to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a week later or two weeks later or three weeks later the president [Bill Clinton] travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an appearance of a conflict?" I would call it a definite conflict of interest bordering on Criminal behavior, but that's just my opinion. Oh Yeah, the "Foundation" violated that agreement at least FIVE TIMES!
10. Why do the Clinton's get away with such behavior time and time again? Are they members of the Hidden Elite Class that is hell bent on running the world with a stratified Oligarchy? the usual tactic they use is Stonewall and admit nothing. Hillary even did this in the beginning and throughout the E-Mail case, even when caught red handed she only modified her testimony for the specific act she was accused of, feigning faulty memory to being mis-quoted on the facts (See the Gowdey questions again). Hey, who remembers the 1978 Cattle Futures $100,000 gain that was a 31Trillion to 1 shot? Coincidence? She used the aforementioned tactic then until the incident was conveniently forgotten.
This leaves us with the question; Do we really want someone who through repeated actions has shown themselves to be Morally and Ethically unsuited for such a high office? It's also a warning to the splinter GOP fools that will vote for her because they were told that Trump was BAD by the Establishment Leadership who want to keep the status Quo as it is instead of doing what is right by the American Public. This election is the watershed election over the Future of the Republic.
The Tradesman
It is my considered Opinion that should Hillary become President she will set up the United States as a Personally Controlled Criminal Enterprise, to benefit her and her progeny. This Treatise is in the Editorial Section and on my page because as pointed out to me by Mangus Colorado; She HAS and IS violating the Constitution. Taking quid pro quo when Bill gave a speech and she as Secretary Of State, gave approvals that Bills speech got the money for.
Here are my reasons;
First; Transcript of the Sworn Testimony before Congress between Gowdey and FBI Director Comey about Hillary's Veracity in past testimony; at a House hearing with Comey under oath, the Gowdy-Comey exchange exposed lies Hillary herself is on record of telling Congress under oath:
Gowdy: Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Not true?
Comey: Right.
Gowdy: Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails. . . . Was that true?
Comey: That's not true.
Gowdy: Clinton said [she] didn't email any classified material to anyone. . . . True?
Comey: There was classified material emailed.
Gowdy: [She] said that she used just one device. True?
Comey: She used multiple devices.
Gowdy: [She] said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. True?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: [She] said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails. . . . True?
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails. . . . Whether they were deleted . . . or something happened to them, there's no doubt that there were work-related emails . . . removed electronically from the email system. [Translation: not true.]
Gowdy: [She] said her lawyers read every one of the emails [individually before deleting any of them]. True?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: False, exculpatory statements—they are used for what?
Comey: Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution?
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: Right.
In spite of that exchange showing at the very least Malfeasance on the part of Hillary, and for some as yet unknown reason, Comey's official recommendation to the DOJ advocated NO criminal charges for Hillary!
Lets take some other verifiable instances when Hillary lied;
1. In a face to face meeting with families of the CIA commando's killed trying to protect Ambassador Stevens, she deliberately lied to them and said the attack was a direct result of an Anti-Islam Video when she positively knew that statement wasn't true. She could have said we are investigating it and given her condolences without compromising anything our intelligence community knew or was investigating. Instead she chose to lie.
2. She is a very skillful and I personally believe she is a compulsive liar. This goes back to the Watergate investigation. House Judiciary Committee's Chief of Staff Jerry Zeifman who was Hillary's Supervisor Stated to Dan Calabreese of North Star newspaper syndicate that " Hillary engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.” Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association. Later,(4/4/2008) Zeifman was asked in an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, "You fired her [Clinton], didn't you?" Zeifman responded, "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who we no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."
3. On just the e-mail issue alone Hillary's Lies are, have been, and judging by lifelong practices will continue to be the way she conducts business, the disregard for National Security, and the allegations of her using Foreign Policy for personal gain makes her unfit for the Presidency. Comey spared Clinton the criminal prosecution for treating classified emails so cavalierly. He was unforgiving in discussing her approach to "very sensitive, highly classified information." indicating it was just short of an indictment. Comey said Clinton emails with "Top Secret/Special Access" information—the truly sensitive stuff—were less protected than they would have been "with a commercial service like Gmail." Consider the 8 notebooks that Gen Petraeus gave to Pamela Broadwell as research material for a book she was writing. Nothing was included in the book and even then most of the information was already in the public domain. Cormey recommended Felony charges against Petraeus and Petraeus eventually plead guilty to a misdemeanor. See the juxtaposition? Old Information that was not used caused the FBI to recommend Felony charges on Petraeus, and new critical classified TOP/SECRET information mishandled by Hillary NO criminal charges recommended, not even misdemeanor charges. WHY?
4. FBI testimony indicated "No Direct Evidence" Hillary's account being hacked but he did specify that others who were in constant contact through her account were hacked. "Guccifer" had no trouble hacking and copying her emails, so why would the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Ali Khamenei have trouble tapping in from the start of the Obama administration when Hillary's e-mail domain was known and apparent. Or considering the fact she used it unsecured outside the US in the countries of our ADVERSARIES said Comey, and also we know who they are.
5. Considering that statement from Comey, David Sanger of the New York Times Opined; The "Lack of clear evidence of hacking gave a clear signal to experts and government investigators that her email likely "had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work." Still no recommendation of criminal charges, WHY?
6. The Clintons together constructed a means ( The Clinton foundation" ) the same foundation that Peter Schweizer cited in his book " Clinton Cash" examined in detail and found out how it was a primary method for the Clintons to use Foreign Policy to their financial advantage. He found out if an entity donated to the Foundation or hired Billy to speak, good things happened for them. The dollar amount cited for the years 2001- 2014 was $229,319,855 and that "Foundation structure" allowed Foreign Governments, Foreign Businesses, and Foreign Financiers to gain 'access' to Politicians even though Federal Election Law prohibits 'Foreign Entities' from donating to American Political Campaigns and their Super-PACS. With the 'Foundation' those entities could go around the laws.
7. Following up on the "Foundation', Politifact confirmed that Bill Clinton's speaking fees took a meteoric rise when Hillary became Secretary of State. To name a few instances;
Two Speeches in Nigeria $700,ooo each.
A speech at Swedish Telecom Company Ericsson $700,000.
Thirteen Speeches for a Hong Cong Company @ $500.000 each.
All this happened from 2001 when he vacated the Oval Office and went on until 2013, when Hillary left as Secretary of State. Thirteen of those speeches by Bill was during the time Hillary was Secretary of State. That alone gives the impression of corruption whether or not it in fact happened, and politics is all about impressions of the politician.
8. There are other instances of the Clinton's making money off of their holding High Offices;
Bill received $16.5 million from Laureate International Industries as their Honorary Chancellor for five years of that online diploma mill, so you can imagine the profits that company made during those five years. It's legal, but is it moral and honorable for a retired president to blatantly sell himself for such things? By the way, Laureate receives $55 million in State Department Grants during Hillary's term as Secretary of State and Bill's honorary Chancellorship. That was only one of the reputed deals in Russia, India, Columbia, and Africa. The Clinton "Foundation" seems more and more like a pay for play quasi-legal and contemptible personal finance enhancing enterprise than the "Charity" it is reputed to be. Is financially enhancing your personal lifestyle considered a "Charity"?
9. The "Foundation" signed a disclosure document to disclose any foreign 'Donations' during Hillary's Secretary of State Position. Even John Kerry asked why the "Foundation" needed to take in 'Foreign Donations'. Kerry publicly speculated; "If you're traveling to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a week later or two weeks later or three weeks later the president [Bill Clinton] travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an appearance of a conflict?" I would call it a definite conflict of interest bordering on Criminal behavior, but that's just my opinion. Oh Yeah, the "Foundation" violated that agreement at least FIVE TIMES!
10. Why do the Clinton's get away with such behavior time and time again? Are they members of the Hidden Elite Class that is hell bent on running the world with a stratified Oligarchy? the usual tactic they use is Stonewall and admit nothing. Hillary even did this in the beginning and throughout the E-Mail case, even when caught red handed she only modified her testimony for the specific act she was accused of, feigning faulty memory to being mis-quoted on the facts (See the Gowdey questions again). Hey, who remembers the 1978 Cattle Futures $100,000 gain that was a 31Trillion to 1 shot? Coincidence? She used the aforementioned tactic then until the incident was conveniently forgotten.
This leaves us with the question; Do we really want someone who through repeated actions has shown themselves to be Morally and Ethically unsuited for such a high office? It's also a warning to the splinter GOP fools that will vote for her because they were told that Trump was BAD by the Establishment Leadership who want to keep the status Quo as it is instead of doing what is right by the American Public. This election is the watershed election over the Future of the Republic.
The Tradesman
Companion Piece To "America At The Crossroads "
Where We Need To Be In November If We Want To Survive In Freedom And Liberty
Where We Need To Be In November If We Want To Survive In Freedom And
Liberty.
With the coming election in November, we have it within our power to start setting things right in our beloved Republic. What we are experiencing as the large disparity between what the people want, and the things the Progressive minorities want, is not the first time this has happened. Before, things were corrected until some Elitist figured out how to jury rig or slip around the regulations and safeguards. Safeguards which were passed, by creating loop holes that always become manifest through the legalese the Lawyer class in power in Congress leave in every bill.i.e. "And for other purposes". Loop holes that they can use to their advantage later and after bluffing the public into agreeing that the legislation was needed, thus allowing their privileged class to amass fortunes off of each others pet projects and primarily paid for off the backs of the public.
>
Everything that has happened in Washington since 1866 has been approved and rubber stamped by the power elite. The first inroad to the usurpation of Constitutional power, and eventual take over of the Constitution by inverting it's caveat of keeping the Federal Government in check, was created by the three words that were deliberately placed in the 14th Amendment ( " NO STATE SHALL" ). That statement flipped and reversed the governmental power flow. These Elitists have been with us since the beginning, when our Nation of Individual Sovereign States coalesced into the United States with first the Articles of Confederation of the Perpetual Union, then with the Constitution as the guidelines for setting and citing the rules. Even then the greed and lust for power, like those which the British Parliament held over the masses with their peerage system of highly stratified class structures, infected the Republic Elitists at it's inception.
>
To cite overwhelming instances; The original plan was to make George Washington the first American King. Thankfully Washington declined and opted for the unheard of idea of self rule. The next instance where the thwarted Elitists stepped in, was the Constitutional delegates from Virginia and the Slavery issue. That issue would have been a deal breaker for the Constitution if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Next was the idea of Judicial review by the Supreme Court that has allowed that Court to basically legislate from the bench without the Constitutional enumerated power to do so.
>
It was a Justice from that Elitist Class (Chief Justice John Marshall)that promoted that ideology and we are stuck with it today to the detriment of the Republic. Even George Mason who was one of the three attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was one of the three who refused to sign, said that federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void." Mason added that the power of judicial review is not a general power to strike down all laws, but only ones that are unconstitutional:
>
Therefore I will go out on a limb here and postulate that the driving force of the hidden Elitists Class is basically GREED and LUST for POWER. Case in point; When laws and regulations are stifling anything the Elitists want or desire, those laws or regulations strangely become lax, changed, or rescinded at the expense of the average American Citizen. The twin enablers of this recurring condition are Greed coupled with the lack of vigilance on the part of the public. This is enhanced by lulling the public into a state where they are complacent because they are allowed just enough to pursue their hedonistic desires but not enough to become independent of the monied powers that make up the majority of that Elitist ruling class.
>
Our Government was originally formed for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, NOT for profit or the interests of private individuals or groups. We do not have a highly defined Class Structure like the British do. We adhered to the principle that people have an incontestable and unalienable right to form a Government based on their collective standards, and through the auspices of Article V within the main body of the Constitution, the PEOPLE have the explicit right to reform that government when it no longer works for the Common Good of the people, but instead only works for the insiders and Elitists.
>
Our Declaration of Independence lays out the basis that first the original articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America, and subsequently the United States Constitution are based on. Since that fateful day when the Elitists of that era slipped in those three words ( "NO STATE SHALL"), we have been falling down an ever increasing slippery slope towards Oligarchy again. Conditions are self evident that the Elitists have systematically reversed most of the Constitution in it's intent, for their specific betterment. People speak of the Elitists with many names and accredit to them the formation of some kind of "New World Order".
>
That is not true. In simple FACT, it's the ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the construction of the United States Constitution codifying the ideological concept of a Nation of People, Ruled by themselves, and by their freely given consent, Was and Is the REAL New World Order. What the Elites want to do is to Re-Establish the Old World Order of a Monarchy Rule style Oligarchy in modified form, until they can supplant even that with a World Wide Total Oligarchy.
>
As was established in the opening paragraph, the intent of this is to inform the public that November is the watershed moment those Elites have worked for since the beginning. Obama was their Penultimate political stooge, but Hillary will be the Ultimate Political Enforcer for their agenda to reshape America into their image of the Subjugated Nation they want. Our only recourse is to get massive numbers to the polls to thwart the Elites chosen one, and even more importantly, get to the polls and choose the existing candidates who, based no their track record, are the most Conservative and Constitutionally Oriented running and elect them to office. This goes for State and Local offices as well! We must at all costs defeat the attempted Socialization of the United States into a quasi Communist/Socialist/Fascist mode that facilitates the hidden Elitist's plans and agendas.
>
Immediately after the election start petitioning your State Legislatures to tell Congress that they want to have an Article V amendment proposal convention with the first item on the list being the proposal to Repeal the 14th,16th,& 17th amendments so the Constitution will revert to it's original intent. After that is accomplished, other amendments may or may not be proposed to stand or fall on their own merits. It's critically important to have your State Legislators enact measures similar to the model Indiana laws which put operational constraints on their delegates to an Article V, Amendment Proposal Convention. Just to clarify, each State deciding what restraints to put on their own delegates, not on all the delegates
>
( Example from Single Subject Amendment.com; By the time the first Article V Convention is convened, every state legislature should have enacted a state statute that provides for the method of delegate selection, duties of delegates, instructions for delegates, oath for delegates, requirement that delegates not exceed their instructions or compromise their oath, automatic removal and replacement of delegates who do not follow instructions or who compromise their oath, and in some states/instances, criminal penalties for being in violation of such statute. )
>
In doing that we will once again put barriers in front of those who would use and abuse their positions of trust for personal Power and Financial Gain.
>
In the Spirit of the American Revolution,
The Tradesman
Liberty.
With the coming election in November, we have it within our power to start setting things right in our beloved Republic. What we are experiencing as the large disparity between what the people want, and the things the Progressive minorities want, is not the first time this has happened. Before, things were corrected until some Elitist figured out how to jury rig or slip around the regulations and safeguards. Safeguards which were passed, by creating loop holes that always become manifest through the legalese the Lawyer class in power in Congress leave in every bill.i.e. "And for other purposes". Loop holes that they can use to their advantage later and after bluffing the public into agreeing that the legislation was needed, thus allowing their privileged class to amass fortunes off of each others pet projects and primarily paid for off the backs of the public.
>
Everything that has happened in Washington since 1866 has been approved and rubber stamped by the power elite. The first inroad to the usurpation of Constitutional power, and eventual take over of the Constitution by inverting it's caveat of keeping the Federal Government in check, was created by the three words that were deliberately placed in the 14th Amendment ( " NO STATE SHALL" ). That statement flipped and reversed the governmental power flow. These Elitists have been with us since the beginning, when our Nation of Individual Sovereign States coalesced into the United States with first the Articles of Confederation of the Perpetual Union, then with the Constitution as the guidelines for setting and citing the rules. Even then the greed and lust for power, like those which the British Parliament held over the masses with their peerage system of highly stratified class structures, infected the Republic Elitists at it's inception.
>
To cite overwhelming instances; The original plan was to make George Washington the first American King. Thankfully Washington declined and opted for the unheard of idea of self rule. The next instance where the thwarted Elitists stepped in, was the Constitutional delegates from Virginia and the Slavery issue. That issue would have been a deal breaker for the Constitution if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Next was the idea of Judicial review by the Supreme Court that has allowed that Court to basically legislate from the bench without the Constitutional enumerated power to do so.
>
It was a Justice from that Elitist Class (Chief Justice John Marshall)that promoted that ideology and we are stuck with it today to the detriment of the Republic. Even George Mason who was one of the three attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was one of the three who refused to sign, said that federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void." Mason added that the power of judicial review is not a general power to strike down all laws, but only ones that are unconstitutional:
>
Therefore I will go out on a limb here and postulate that the driving force of the hidden Elitists Class is basically GREED and LUST for POWER. Case in point; When laws and regulations are stifling anything the Elitists want or desire, those laws or regulations strangely become lax, changed, or rescinded at the expense of the average American Citizen. The twin enablers of this recurring condition are Greed coupled with the lack of vigilance on the part of the public. This is enhanced by lulling the public into a state where they are complacent because they are allowed just enough to pursue their hedonistic desires but not enough to become independent of the monied powers that make up the majority of that Elitist ruling class.
>
Our Government was originally formed for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, NOT for profit or the interests of private individuals or groups. We do not have a highly defined Class Structure like the British do. We adhered to the principle that people have an incontestable and unalienable right to form a Government based on their collective standards, and through the auspices of Article V within the main body of the Constitution, the PEOPLE have the explicit right to reform that government when it no longer works for the Common Good of the people, but instead only works for the insiders and Elitists.
>
Our Declaration of Independence lays out the basis that first the original articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America, and subsequently the United States Constitution are based on. Since that fateful day when the Elitists of that era slipped in those three words ( "NO STATE SHALL"), we have been falling down an ever increasing slippery slope towards Oligarchy again. Conditions are self evident that the Elitists have systematically reversed most of the Constitution in it's intent, for their specific betterment. People speak of the Elitists with many names and accredit to them the formation of some kind of "New World Order".
>
That is not true. In simple FACT, it's the ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the construction of the United States Constitution codifying the ideological concept of a Nation of People, Ruled by themselves, and by their freely given consent, Was and Is the REAL New World Order. What the Elites want to do is to Re-Establish the Old World Order of a Monarchy Rule style Oligarchy in modified form, until they can supplant even that with a World Wide Total Oligarchy.
>
As was established in the opening paragraph, the intent of this is to inform the public that November is the watershed moment those Elites have worked for since the beginning. Obama was their Penultimate political stooge, but Hillary will be the Ultimate Political Enforcer for their agenda to reshape America into their image of the Subjugated Nation they want. Our only recourse is to get massive numbers to the polls to thwart the Elites chosen one, and even more importantly, get to the polls and choose the existing candidates who, based no their track record, are the most Conservative and Constitutionally Oriented running and elect them to office. This goes for State and Local offices as well! We must at all costs defeat the attempted Socialization of the United States into a quasi Communist/Socialist/Fascist mode that facilitates the hidden Elitist's plans and agendas.
>
Immediately after the election start petitioning your State Legislatures to tell Congress that they want to have an Article V amendment proposal convention with the first item on the list being the proposal to Repeal the 14th,16th,& 17th amendments so the Constitution will revert to it's original intent. After that is accomplished, other amendments may or may not be proposed to stand or fall on their own merits. It's critically important to have your State Legislators enact measures similar to the model Indiana laws which put operational constraints on their delegates to an Article V, Amendment Proposal Convention. Just to clarify, each State deciding what restraints to put on their own delegates, not on all the delegates
>
( Example from Single Subject Amendment.com; By the time the first Article V Convention is convened, every state legislature should have enacted a state statute that provides for the method of delegate selection, duties of delegates, instructions for delegates, oath for delegates, requirement that delegates not exceed their instructions or compromise their oath, automatic removal and replacement of delegates who do not follow instructions or who compromise their oath, and in some states/instances, criminal penalties for being in violation of such statute. )
>
In doing that we will once again put barriers in front of those who would use and abuse their positions of trust for personal Power and Financial Gain.
>
In the Spirit of the American Revolution,
The Tradesman
America At The Crossroads Of Liberty And Totalitarianism
We Americans are on the cusp of the most intense and critical crossroads which will determine our continued Freedom and our Constitutional Republic. We will not be allowed to remain at this point for very long. I can see where the Progressive/Liberal/Socialists are priming their Democratic Party attack dogs, to do their bidding and castrate American Power and Exceptionalism, replacing it with Sycophancy and Deference to the Dictatorial Oligarchy on the horizon. We Americans have been bluffed and bull sh*tted into a state of moronic political blindness by the forces arrayed against us. Namely the forces of hidden Elitist Puppet Masters who are controlling our Politicians, Finances, Educational Systems, and Mass Media outlets. Today's Media is much worse than the old USSR Pravda and Tass, Party Approved Propaganda dispensers.
The American Ideology and Spirit has been under an onslaught of differing attacks aimed at weakening and dissipating all American Unity so the eventual takeover will be easier, and more safely scripted for the Elites and their occupying force who will be charged with initiating it. For years I have been championing a States Petitioned for 'Article V Amendment Proposal Convention' that would have the initial primary focus on Repealing the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments to flip the Constitutional power flow back to where the Founders intended it to be. Now, the idea is taking on steam towards that end in the minds of the People and the States, the opposition from the Democratic/Socialists known as the Democratic party wants Congress to call for an Article V convention they control, to change two Bill of Rights Amendments into something else they can use to further enslave the American Citizenry.
On holidays like the Fourth of July, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, the American Public still pays homage to our successful Revolution, but they have been bluffed and partially brainwashed by the Progressive influencers, into thinking everything is settled in that department. In point of fact, the same oppressive conditions remain, and even greater ones exist today than existed in 1776, albeit from a different source. It is a shameful fact that our Federal Government has become a worse oppressor than King George ever was. This Flagrant and contemptible condition is due to the fact that the three reprehensible words ( NO STATE SHALL) were clandestinely and stealthily included in the 14th Amendment to act as a covert political infernal device, used to flip the Constitution 180 degrees in it's power flow of endowing specific enumerated authority rights. It took away the original power the People and the States were vested with, unjustly transferring it without the lawful consent of the People or the States, to the Federal Government.
It's time for all Freedom and Liberty loving Americans from both sides of the Aisle, to stand up against this usurpation of our Valid, Ethical, Legal and Constitutionally Enumerated Powers, and take them back by force of Law! The Founders being well educated men, were aware that every political system eventually becomes corrupt and untenable to the purposes it was constructed to embrace. The Founders knew that the people could not unconditionally trust their government, or their representatives over time, because that government, and those representatives, would eventually knuckle under to the forces of rampant greed, and would lust for powers beyond those specifically granted to them by the Constitution. The Founders also knew the written Constitution would have to be refreshed and interpreted by the People themselves, not by the Government or the Courts, for the future times it was to pass through. Knowing they did not want the main body to be tampered with by anyone, they devised a method less permanent to temporarily interpret the Main body of the Constitution for each generation of the American People.
The method they came up with is as simple as it is brilliant. It can be instituted and removed at the will of the people, as they see fit, without changing one word of the Main Body of the Constitution. That method is codified in Article V within the Constitution's Main Body. Article V allows for the Amendment process by Congress AND by the People themselves! The Founders knowing that there would come a time when the people could no longer trust their Government, or their Representatives, to act in the people's best interests, the Founders set forth provisions for the people, who are the actual supreme power in the United States, to go around that government and to reform it where the people themselves see a need for reformation.
Knowing all of this, and considering how the Federal Government has went far beyond what it was ever intended to go, it must be put back in check. The legal bloodless force 'We The People' need to invoke, in order to curtail the governmental excesses, and it's circumventing of the will of the people, and not not overstepping Constitutional restrictions, is Article V of the Constitution. It is time for the people to demand their States petition Congress for that States controlled Amendment Proposal Convention, to first Repeal the 14th,16th,17th Amendments so we have Legitimate Constitutional Power over the Federal Government once again.Then propose other amendments the people want to see enacted to precipitate further control over the Central Federal Government.
Bear in mind, it will be 'The People' of America that have the vote of Yea or Nay on the Ratification of all proposed Amendments, and it WILL TAKE 38 States to Ratify any of those changes in interpretation the Amendments are purposed for.
On this Fourth of July 2016;
These ideas and facts are my insights to what must be done to preserve the Republic in Freedom and Liberty! The implementation of them is up to the people.
Yours in Freedom and Liberty,
The Tradesman
The American Ideology and Spirit has been under an onslaught of differing attacks aimed at weakening and dissipating all American Unity so the eventual takeover will be easier, and more safely scripted for the Elites and their occupying force who will be charged with initiating it. For years I have been championing a States Petitioned for 'Article V Amendment Proposal Convention' that would have the initial primary focus on Repealing the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments to flip the Constitutional power flow back to where the Founders intended it to be. Now, the idea is taking on steam towards that end in the minds of the People and the States, the opposition from the Democratic/Socialists known as the Democratic party wants Congress to call for an Article V convention they control, to change two Bill of Rights Amendments into something else they can use to further enslave the American Citizenry.
On holidays like the Fourth of July, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, the American Public still pays homage to our successful Revolution, but they have been bluffed and partially brainwashed by the Progressive influencers, into thinking everything is settled in that department. In point of fact, the same oppressive conditions remain, and even greater ones exist today than existed in 1776, albeit from a different source. It is a shameful fact that our Federal Government has become a worse oppressor than King George ever was. This Flagrant and contemptible condition is due to the fact that the three reprehensible words ( NO STATE SHALL) were clandestinely and stealthily included in the 14th Amendment to act as a covert political infernal device, used to flip the Constitution 180 degrees in it's power flow of endowing specific enumerated authority rights. It took away the original power the People and the States were vested with, unjustly transferring it without the lawful consent of the People or the States, to the Federal Government.
It's time for all Freedom and Liberty loving Americans from both sides of the Aisle, to stand up against this usurpation of our Valid, Ethical, Legal and Constitutionally Enumerated Powers, and take them back by force of Law! The Founders being well educated men, were aware that every political system eventually becomes corrupt and untenable to the purposes it was constructed to embrace. The Founders knew that the people could not unconditionally trust their government, or their representatives over time, because that government, and those representatives, would eventually knuckle under to the forces of rampant greed, and would lust for powers beyond those specifically granted to them by the Constitution. The Founders also knew the written Constitution would have to be refreshed and interpreted by the People themselves, not by the Government or the Courts, for the future times it was to pass through. Knowing they did not want the main body to be tampered with by anyone, they devised a method less permanent to temporarily interpret the Main body of the Constitution for each generation of the American People.
The method they came up with is as simple as it is brilliant. It can be instituted and removed at the will of the people, as they see fit, without changing one word of the Main Body of the Constitution. That method is codified in Article V within the Constitution's Main Body. Article V allows for the Amendment process by Congress AND by the People themselves! The Founders knowing that there would come a time when the people could no longer trust their Government, or their Representatives, to act in the people's best interests, the Founders set forth provisions for the people, who are the actual supreme power in the United States, to go around that government and to reform it where the people themselves see a need for reformation.
Knowing all of this, and considering how the Federal Government has went far beyond what it was ever intended to go, it must be put back in check. The legal bloodless force 'We The People' need to invoke, in order to curtail the governmental excesses, and it's circumventing of the will of the people, and not not overstepping Constitutional restrictions, is Article V of the Constitution. It is time for the people to demand their States petition Congress for that States controlled Amendment Proposal Convention, to first Repeal the 14th,16th,17th Amendments so we have Legitimate Constitutional Power over the Federal Government once again.Then propose other amendments the people want to see enacted to precipitate further control over the Central Federal Government.
Bear in mind, it will be 'The People' of America that have the vote of Yea or Nay on the Ratification of all proposed Amendments, and it WILL TAKE 38 States to Ratify any of those changes in interpretation the Amendments are purposed for.
On this Fourth of July 2016;
These ideas and facts are my insights to what must be done to preserve the Republic in Freedom and Liberty! The implementation of them is up to the people.
Yours in Freedom and Liberty,
The Tradesman
Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report
Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,
Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans
Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:
“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.
“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.
“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”
The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:
“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”
Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:
“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”
Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:
“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”
Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.
Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community, and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond.
The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.
Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan
FACT SHEET: The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By the Numbers
Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.
Report of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012
Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
Illustrations
I. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi
II. Internal and Public Government Communications about the Terrorist
Attacks in Benghazi
III. Events Leading to the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi
IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations
V. Recommendations
Appendix A: Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on the
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
Appendix B: Significant Persons and Organizations
Appendix C: Questions for the President
Appendix D: Significant Events in Libya Prior to the Attacks
Appendix E: Security Incidents in Libya
Appendix F: Deterioration of Benghazi Mission Compound Security
Appendix G: Timelines of the Attacks
Appendix H: The September 12 Situation Report and the President’s
Daily Brief
Appendix I: Witness Interview Summaries
Appendix J: Requests and Subpoenas for Documents
Appendix K: Analysis of Accountability Review Board, House Armed
Services Committee and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee
Reports
Appendix L: Glen A. Doherty, Sean P. Smith, J. Christopher Stevens,
and Tyrone S. Woods
Additional Views by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Pompeo
Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans
Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:
“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.
“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.
“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”
The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:
- Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
- With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
- The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
- A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
- None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
- The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”
Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:
- Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
- The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
- Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
- According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
- On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
- After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
- Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
- The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
- A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]
“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”
Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:
- During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
- The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
- When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
- In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
- Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
- In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
- Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]
“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”
Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.
Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community, and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond.
The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.
Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan
FACT SHEET: The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By the Numbers
Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.
Report of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012
Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
Illustrations
I. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi
II. Internal and Public Government Communications about the Terrorist
Attacks in Benghazi
III. Events Leading to the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi
IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations
V. Recommendations
Appendix A: Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on the
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
Appendix B: Significant Persons and Organizations
Appendix C: Questions for the President
Appendix D: Significant Events in Libya Prior to the Attacks
Appendix E: Security Incidents in Libya
Appendix F: Deterioration of Benghazi Mission Compound Security
Appendix G: Timelines of the Attacks
Appendix H: The September 12 Situation Report and the President’s
Daily Brief
Appendix I: Witness Interview Summaries
Appendix J: Requests and Subpoenas for Documents
Appendix K: Analysis of Accountability Review Board, House Armed
Services Committee and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee
Reports
Appendix L: Glen A. Doherty, Sean P. Smith, J. Christopher Stevens,
and Tyrone S. Woods
Additional Views by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Pompeo
Statement on Democrats' So-Called 'Report'June 27, 2016
Press ReleaseWashington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Press Secretary Matt Wolking released the following statement regarding Committee Democrats' so-called "report":
“Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president.
“As Chairman Gowdy has said, this is not about one person. This investigation is about the four brave Americans we lost in Libya: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. That is how the Majority has conducted its thorough investigation, and we look forward to revealing the new information we have uncovered to the families and the American people.”
A quick Ctrl+F search of the Democrats’ 339-page “report” reveals these telling facts:
339 – Total pages
334 – Number of times “Clinton” appears
200 – Number of times “Republicans” appears
85 – Number of times “Stevens” appears
55 – Number of times “Blumenthal” appears
36 – Number of times “Smith” appears
23 – Number of times “Trump” appears - ?????
15 – Number of times “Doherty” appears
12 – Number of times “Brock” appears
8 – Number of times “Correct the Record” appears
6 – Number of times “Woods” appears
Press ReleaseWashington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Press Secretary Matt Wolking released the following statement regarding Committee Democrats' so-called "report":
“Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president.
“As Chairman Gowdy has said, this is not about one person. This investigation is about the four brave Americans we lost in Libya: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. That is how the Majority has conducted its thorough investigation, and we look forward to revealing the new information we have uncovered to the families and the American people.”
A quick Ctrl+F search of the Democrats’ 339-page “report” reveals these telling facts:
339 – Total pages
334 – Number of times “Clinton” appears
200 – Number of times “Republicans” appears
85 – Number of times “Stevens” appears
55 – Number of times “Blumenthal” appears
36 – Number of times “Smith” appears
23 – Number of times “Trump” appears - ?????
15 – Number of times “Doherty” appears
12 – Number of times “Brock” appears
8 – Number of times “Correct the Record” appears
6 – Number of times “Woods” appears
Where We Need To Be In November If We Want To Survive In Freedom And Liberty
With the coming election in November, we have it within our power to start setting things right in our beloved Republic. What we are experiencing as the large disparity between what the people want, and the things the Progressive minorities want, is not the first time this has happened. Before, things were corrected until some Elitist figured out how to jury rig or slip around the regulations and safeguards. Safeguards which were by-passed, by creating loop holes that always become manifest through the legalese the Lawyer class in power in Congress leave in every bill.i.e. "And for other purposes". Loop holes that they can use to their advantage later and after bluffing the public into agreeing that the legislation was needed, thus allowing their privileged class to amass fortunes off of each others pet projects and primarily paid for off the backs of the public.
Everything that has happened in Washington since 1866 has been approved and rubber stamped by the power elite. The first inroad to the usurpation of Constitutional power, and eventual take over of the Constitution by inverting it's caveat of keeping the Federal Government in check, was created by the three words that were deliberately placed in the 14th Amendment ( " NO STATE SHALL" ). That statement flipped and reversed the governmental power flow. These Elitists have been with us since the beginning, when our Nation of Individual Sovereign States coalesced into the United States with first the Articles of Confederation of the Perpetual Union, then with the Constitution as the guidelines for setting and citing the rules. Even then the greed and lust for power, like those which the British Parliament held over the masses with their peerage system of highly stratified class structures, infected the Republic Elitists at it's inception.
To cite overwhelming instances; The original plan was to make George Washington the first American King. Thankfully Washington declined and opted for the unheard of idea of self rule. The next instance where the thwarted Elitists stepped in, was the Constitutional delegates from Virginia and the Slavery issue. That issue would have been a deal breaker for the Constitution if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Next was the idea of Judicial review by the Supreme Court that has allowed that Court to basically legislate from the bench without the Constitutional enumerated power to do so.
It was a Justice from that Elitist Class (Chief Justice John Marshall)that promoted that ideology and we are stuck with it today to the detriment of the Republic. Even George Mason who was one of the three attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was one of the three who refused to sign, said that federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void." Mason added that the power of judicial review is not a general power to strike down all laws, but only ones that are unconstitutional:
Therefore I will go out on a limb here and postulate that the driving force of the hidden Elitists Class is basically GREED and LUST for POWER. Case in point; When laws and regulations are stifling anything the Elitists want or desire, those laws or regulations strangely become lax, changed, or rescinded at the expense of the average American Citizen. The twin enablers of this recurring condition are Greed coupled with the lack of vigilance on the part of the public. This is enhanced by lulling the public into a state where they are complacent because they are allowed just enough to pursue their hedonistic desires but not enough to become independent of the monied powers that make up the majority of that Elitist ruling class.
Our Government was originally formed for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, NOT for profit or the interests of private individuals or groups. We do not have a highly defined Class Structure like the British do. We adhered to the principle that people have an incontestable and unalienable right to form a Government based on their collective standards, and through the auspices of Article V within the main body of the Constitution, the PEOPLE have the explicit right to reform that government when it no longer works for the Common Good of the people, but instead only works for the insiders and Elitists.
Our Declaration of Independence lays out the basis that first the original articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America, and subsequently the United States Constitution are based on. Since that fateful day when the Elitists of that era slipped in those three words ( "NO STATE SHALL"), we have been falling down an ever increasing slippery slope towards Oligarchy again. Conditions are self evident that the Elitists have systematically reversed most of the Constitution in it's intent, for their specific betterment. People speak of the Elitists with many names and accredit to them the formation of some kind of "New World Order".
That is not true. In simple FACT, it's the ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the construction of the United States Constitution codifying the ideological concept of a Nation of People, Ruled by themselves, and by their freely given consent, Was and Is the REAL New World Order. What the Elites want to do is to Re-Establish the Old World Order of a Monarchy Rule style Oligarchy in modified form, until they can supplant even that with a World Wide Total Oligarchy.
As was established in the opening paragraph, the intent of this is to inform the public that November is the watershed moment those Elites have worked for since the beginning. Obama was their Penultimate political stooge, but Hillary will be the Ultimate Political Enforcer for their agenda to reshape America into their image of the Subjugated Nation they want. Our only recourse is to get massive numbers to the polls to thwart the Elites chosen one, and even more importantly, get to the polls and choose the existing candidates who, based on their track record, are the most Conservative and Constitutionally Oriented running and elect them to office. This goes for State and Local offices as well! We must at all costs defeat the attempted Socialization of the United States into a quasi Communist/Socialist/Fascist mode that facilitates the hidden Elitist's plans and agendas.
Immediately after the election start petitioning your State Legislatures to tell Congress that they want to have an Article V amendment proposal convention with the first item on the list being the proposal to Repeal the 14th,16th,& 17th amendments so the Constitution will revert to it's original intent. After that is accomplished, other amendments may be proposed and stand or fall on their own merits. It's critically important to have your State Legislators enact measures similar to the model Indiana laws which put operational constraints on their delegates to an Article V, Amendment Proposal Convention.
( Example from Single Subject Amendment.com; By the time the first Article V Convention is convened, every state legislature should have enacted a state statute that provides for the method of delegate selection, duties of delegates, instructions for delegates, oath for delegates, requirement that delegates not exceed their instructions or compromise their oath, automatic removal and replacement of delegates who do not follow instructions or who compromise their oath, and in some states/instances, criminal penalties for being in violation of such statute. )
In doing that we will once again put barriers in front of those who would use and abuse their positions of trust for personal Power and Financial Gain.
In the Spirit of the American Revolution,
The Tradesman
Everything that has happened in Washington since 1866 has been approved and rubber stamped by the power elite. The first inroad to the usurpation of Constitutional power, and eventual take over of the Constitution by inverting it's caveat of keeping the Federal Government in check, was created by the three words that were deliberately placed in the 14th Amendment ( " NO STATE SHALL" ). That statement flipped and reversed the governmental power flow. These Elitists have been with us since the beginning, when our Nation of Individual Sovereign States coalesced into the United States with first the Articles of Confederation of the Perpetual Union, then with the Constitution as the guidelines for setting and citing the rules. Even then the greed and lust for power, like those which the British Parliament held over the masses with their peerage system of highly stratified class structures, infected the Republic Elitists at it's inception.
To cite overwhelming instances; The original plan was to make George Washington the first American King. Thankfully Washington declined and opted for the unheard of idea of self rule. The next instance where the thwarted Elitists stepped in, was the Constitutional delegates from Virginia and the Slavery issue. That issue would have been a deal breaker for the Constitution if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Next was the idea of Judicial review by the Supreme Court that has allowed that Court to basically legislate from the bench without the Constitutional enumerated power to do so.
It was a Justice from that Elitist Class (Chief Justice John Marshall)that promoted that ideology and we are stuck with it today to the detriment of the Republic. Even George Mason who was one of the three attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was one of the three who refused to sign, said that federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void." Mason added that the power of judicial review is not a general power to strike down all laws, but only ones that are unconstitutional:
Therefore I will go out on a limb here and postulate that the driving force of the hidden Elitists Class is basically GREED and LUST for POWER. Case in point; When laws and regulations are stifling anything the Elitists want or desire, those laws or regulations strangely become lax, changed, or rescinded at the expense of the average American Citizen. The twin enablers of this recurring condition are Greed coupled with the lack of vigilance on the part of the public. This is enhanced by lulling the public into a state where they are complacent because they are allowed just enough to pursue their hedonistic desires but not enough to become independent of the monied powers that make up the majority of that Elitist ruling class.
Our Government was originally formed for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, NOT for profit or the interests of private individuals or groups. We do not have a highly defined Class Structure like the British do. We adhered to the principle that people have an incontestable and unalienable right to form a Government based on their collective standards, and through the auspices of Article V within the main body of the Constitution, the PEOPLE have the explicit right to reform that government when it no longer works for the Common Good of the people, but instead only works for the insiders and Elitists.
Our Declaration of Independence lays out the basis that first the original articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States of America, and subsequently the United States Constitution are based on. Since that fateful day when the Elitists of that era slipped in those three words ( "NO STATE SHALL"), we have been falling down an ever increasing slippery slope towards Oligarchy again. Conditions are self evident that the Elitists have systematically reversed most of the Constitution in it's intent, for their specific betterment. People speak of the Elitists with many names and accredit to them the formation of some kind of "New World Order".
That is not true. In simple FACT, it's the ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the construction of the United States Constitution codifying the ideological concept of a Nation of People, Ruled by themselves, and by their freely given consent, Was and Is the REAL New World Order. What the Elites want to do is to Re-Establish the Old World Order of a Monarchy Rule style Oligarchy in modified form, until they can supplant even that with a World Wide Total Oligarchy.
As was established in the opening paragraph, the intent of this is to inform the public that November is the watershed moment those Elites have worked for since the beginning. Obama was their Penultimate political stooge, but Hillary will be the Ultimate Political Enforcer for their agenda to reshape America into their image of the Subjugated Nation they want. Our only recourse is to get massive numbers to the polls to thwart the Elites chosen one, and even more importantly, get to the polls and choose the existing candidates who, based on their track record, are the most Conservative and Constitutionally Oriented running and elect them to office. This goes for State and Local offices as well! We must at all costs defeat the attempted Socialization of the United States into a quasi Communist/Socialist/Fascist mode that facilitates the hidden Elitist's plans and agendas.
Immediately after the election start petitioning your State Legislatures to tell Congress that they want to have an Article V amendment proposal convention with the first item on the list being the proposal to Repeal the 14th,16th,& 17th amendments so the Constitution will revert to it's original intent. After that is accomplished, other amendments may be proposed and stand or fall on their own merits. It's critically important to have your State Legislators enact measures similar to the model Indiana laws which put operational constraints on their delegates to an Article V, Amendment Proposal Convention.
( Example from Single Subject Amendment.com; By the time the first Article V Convention is convened, every state legislature should have enacted a state statute that provides for the method of delegate selection, duties of delegates, instructions for delegates, oath for delegates, requirement that delegates not exceed their instructions or compromise their oath, automatic removal and replacement of delegates who do not follow instructions or who compromise their oath, and in some states/instances, criminal penalties for being in violation of such statute. )
In doing that we will once again put barriers in front of those who would use and abuse their positions of trust for personal Power and Financial Gain.
In the Spirit of the American Revolution,
The Tradesman
Transgender Bathroom And Other Issues.
Transgender Bathroom Issues
On the Transgender Bathrooms and other pertinent issues facing us today in America. Where do we draw the line?
The bottom line in this issue confronting us, and in most issues confronting us, is the fact that one faction or another demands everyone see it their way, and accept the things they want accepted without any compromise. As far as Transgender bathrooms go, I believe the problem issues are being fought with the wrong principles and in the wrong arena.
Why not look at it this way; Have one type of Public bathroom for all people. In these model bathrooms, have fully enclosed cubicles, which can be locked from the inside affording privacy and security to the user, and with the necessary amenities incorporated within those cubicles?
This would not only afford privacy with dignity not only to Transgenders but to everyone. It would also totally benefit another group that is usually left out; Handicapped persons that need their spouse or friend of the opposite sex to enter and help them when they have to go.
It would make a lot more sense to do it that way instead of fighting over who can use what and what has to be forced on other groups. They could be set up similar to the Porta-Potty stalls at public gatherings the best of which have a toilet , a stand up urinal, and a washbasin with a mirror and paper towel dispensers. That way no ones rights to privacy would be compromised, no ones sensibilities would be compromised, nor would there be any Onus put on those persons who were different from the average majority.
Most importantly it would encourage TOLERANCE instead of LEGISLATING DEMANDED ACCEPTANCE. I feel that many Americans may not accept a different lifestyle, but they should be able and capable of showing tolerance for it without compromising any of their beliefs, stepping on anyones rights, and not having their rights stepped on by Legislation demanding Acceptance that takes rights from one person or group, to give them to another person or group under the guise of "Protecting Civil Rights of Individuals' or for anything else for that matter.
This idea of TOLERANCE for an issue, instead of Legislated Demanded Acceptance for an issue, goes way beyond the bathroom issue. It works both ways, promoting Tolerance from both sides in a legitimate dispute on what needs to be done in any given circumstances. It would be a start towards Honorable, Ethical, and Acceptable True Compromise /s and can be adapted to any issues plaguing America today. The main criterion is True Compromise where neither side gets their rights stepped on or diminished unless they are equally diminished for both sides.
Example other than the bathroom issue. Contraceptives. Instead of making Religions pay for them if it goes against their Religious teachings, how about a tax break for everyone ( men and women inclusive to be fair) during their reproductive years, and let the individuals pay for their own contraceptives by using that tax break money on them. It lowers taxes for individuals and makes it fair for all concerned.
The Gun Control issue is tougher but not impossible. Strangely enough the knee jerk attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama Administration, whereby it is trying to get Governors and State Legislatures to enact the gun rules it wants to see enacted, is actually a throwback to what the Founders intended, instead of the usual Liberal disarmament rhetoric. The Founders intended that the Individual Sovereign States set the rules for their own States within the boundaries of the Written Constitution, and if the people disagreed with those State rules, the people could either replace the representatives, or they could move to another State with laws that were more agreeable with them. That doctrine would work PROVIDED the States enacted Gun Laws commensurate with their individual State Constitutions and without Federal Government interference.
The Compromise could be;
1. The Federal Government stepping in and requiring the States to all have some sort of concealed carry license,with the individual States setting their own standards for that License.
2. Minimum standards for ALL States on safety training, applicable law, and physical competency with a firearm.
3. Reciprocity for concealed carry permits mandatory among all the States, and allowing for the transportation and carry of loaded personal weapons, covered by the Concealed Carry License, and preventing harassment by Police forces of the individual States of anyone so covered.
4. Legislation for the private transportation of personal firearms covering both with and without a concealed carry license, having all situations (One example being; Long Guns being required to be unloaded and secured within the vehicle during transportation) covered and reciprocal between all States.
5. Legislation binding on all States to 'prevent the sales/gifting/inheriting of weapons between private individuals of different States unless they went through FFL license holders'.
6. States to decide the criterion commensurate with their Individual State Constitutions, on mandatory background checks for sales within their States and whether to keep records of those sales, tracking of subsequent sales/gifting/inheriting etc.
7. States determining with hard and fast written in plain English rules with no generalities only specifics, on who would be proscribed from owning a firearm. i.e. Convicted Felons who have not had their rights restored by a Court of Law. Mentally Incompetent individuals, Known Terrorists, ( Again a hard and fast clear set of standards written in plain English [Medical Terms excepted but explained so a layman can fully understand them] with no generalities or terms like "and for other purposes" as the basis for denial with results reviewed and verifiable by independent review groups, and allowing for appeals), but those designations determined by the States NOT the Federal Government.. General Federal Guidelines can set up as advisories only, which can be followed by the States, but are not mandatory guidelines to be followed by the States in the Final Determinations
On the Transgender Bathrooms and other pertinent issues facing us today in America. Where do we draw the line?
The bottom line in this issue confronting us, and in most issues confronting us, is the fact that one faction or another demands everyone see it their way, and accept the things they want accepted without any compromise. As far as Transgender bathrooms go, I believe the problem issues are being fought with the wrong principles and in the wrong arena.
Why not look at it this way; Have one type of Public bathroom for all people. In these model bathrooms, have fully enclosed cubicles, which can be locked from the inside affording privacy and security to the user, and with the necessary amenities incorporated within those cubicles?
This would not only afford privacy with dignity not only to Transgenders but to everyone. It would also totally benefit another group that is usually left out; Handicapped persons that need their spouse or friend of the opposite sex to enter and help them when they have to go.
It would make a lot more sense to do it that way instead of fighting over who can use what and what has to be forced on other groups. They could be set up similar to the Porta-Potty stalls at public gatherings the best of which have a toilet , a stand up urinal, and a washbasin with a mirror and paper towel dispensers. That way no ones rights to privacy would be compromised, no ones sensibilities would be compromised, nor would there be any Onus put on those persons who were different from the average majority.
Most importantly it would encourage TOLERANCE instead of LEGISLATING DEMANDED ACCEPTANCE. I feel that many Americans may not accept a different lifestyle, but they should be able and capable of showing tolerance for it without compromising any of their beliefs, stepping on anyones rights, and not having their rights stepped on by Legislation demanding Acceptance that takes rights from one person or group, to give them to another person or group under the guise of "Protecting Civil Rights of Individuals' or for anything else for that matter.
This idea of TOLERANCE for an issue, instead of Legislated Demanded Acceptance for an issue, goes way beyond the bathroom issue. It works both ways, promoting Tolerance from both sides in a legitimate dispute on what needs to be done in any given circumstances. It would be a start towards Honorable, Ethical, and Acceptable True Compromise /s and can be adapted to any issues plaguing America today. The main criterion is True Compromise where neither side gets their rights stepped on or diminished unless they are equally diminished for both sides.
Example other than the bathroom issue. Contraceptives. Instead of making Religions pay for them if it goes against their Religious teachings, how about a tax break for everyone ( men and women inclusive to be fair) during their reproductive years, and let the individuals pay for their own contraceptives by using that tax break money on them. It lowers taxes for individuals and makes it fair for all concerned.
The Gun Control issue is tougher but not impossible. Strangely enough the knee jerk attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama Administration, whereby it is trying to get Governors and State Legislatures to enact the gun rules it wants to see enacted, is actually a throwback to what the Founders intended, instead of the usual Liberal disarmament rhetoric. The Founders intended that the Individual Sovereign States set the rules for their own States within the boundaries of the Written Constitution, and if the people disagreed with those State rules, the people could either replace the representatives, or they could move to another State with laws that were more agreeable with them. That doctrine would work PROVIDED the States enacted Gun Laws commensurate with their individual State Constitutions and without Federal Government interference.
The Compromise could be;
1. The Federal Government stepping in and requiring the States to all have some sort of concealed carry license,with the individual States setting their own standards for that License.
2. Minimum standards for ALL States on safety training, applicable law, and physical competency with a firearm.
3. Reciprocity for concealed carry permits mandatory among all the States, and allowing for the transportation and carry of loaded personal weapons, covered by the Concealed Carry License, and preventing harassment by Police forces of the individual States of anyone so covered.
4. Legislation for the private transportation of personal firearms covering both with and without a concealed carry license, having all situations (One example being; Long Guns being required to be unloaded and secured within the vehicle during transportation) covered and reciprocal between all States.
5. Legislation binding on all States to 'prevent the sales/gifting/inheriting of weapons between private individuals of different States unless they went through FFL license holders'.
6. States to decide the criterion commensurate with their Individual State Constitutions, on mandatory background checks for sales within their States and whether to keep records of those sales, tracking of subsequent sales/gifting/inheriting etc.
7. States determining with hard and fast written in plain English rules with no generalities only specifics, on who would be proscribed from owning a firearm. i.e. Convicted Felons who have not had their rights restored by a Court of Law. Mentally Incompetent individuals, Known Terrorists, ( Again a hard and fast clear set of standards written in plain English [Medical Terms excepted but explained so a layman can fully understand them] with no generalities or terms like "and for other purposes" as the basis for denial with results reviewed and verifiable by independent review groups, and allowing for appeals), but those designations determined by the States NOT the Federal Government.. General Federal Guidelines can set up as advisories only, which can be followed by the States, but are not mandatory guidelines to be followed by the States in the Final Determinations
The Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution
In 1803 a distinguished Virginia jurist named St. George Tucker published the first extended analysis and commentary on the recently adopted U.S. Constitution. Though it is mostly forgotten today, Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States was a major work in its time. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, generations of lawyers and scholars would reach for Tucker's View as a go-to constitutional law textbook.
I was reminded of Tucker's dusty tome in recent days after reading one liberal pundit after another smugly assert that the original meaning of the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, for example, denounced the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment as a "a hoax" peddled in recent years by the conniving National Rifle Association. Likewise, Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson complained that "the NRA's politicking has warped the Constitution itself" by tricking the Supreme Court into "recast[ing] the Second Amendment as a guarantee of individual gun rights."
Old St. George Tucker never encountered any "politicking" by the NRA. A veteran of the Revolutionary war and a one-time colleague of James Madison, Tucker watched in real time as Americans publicly debated whether or to ratify the Constitution, and then watched again as Americans debated whether or not to amend the Constitution by adopting the Bill of Rights. Afterwards Tucker sat down and wrote the country's first major constitutional treatise. And as far Tucker was concerned, there was simply no doubt that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to arms. "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty," Tucker wrote of the Second Amendment. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature."
The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment was widely held during the founding era. How do we know this? Because the historical evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. For example, consider the historical context in which the Second Amendment was first adopted.
When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 it lacked the Bill of Rights. Those first 10 amendments came along a few years later, added to the Constitution in response to objections made during ratification by the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to see some explicit protections added in order to safeguard key individual rights. As the pseudonymous Anti-Federalist pamphleteer "John DeWitt" put it, "the want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system, is a solid objection to it."
Library of CongressLibrary of CongressJames Madison, the primary architect of the new Constitution, took seriously such Anti-Federalist objections. "The great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution]," Madison told Congress in 1789, "dislike it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights." To remove such objections, Madison said, supporters of the Constitution should compromise and agree to include "such amendments in the constitution as will secure those rights, which [the Anti-Federalists] consider as not sufficiently guarded." Madison then proposed the batch of amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights.
What "particular rights" did the Anti-Federalists consider to be "not sufficiently guarded" by the new Constitution? One right that the Anti-Federalists brought up again and again was the individual right to arms.
For example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to "be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."
Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state's ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
One of the central purposes of the Second Amendment was to mollify such concerns by enshrining the individual right to arms squarely within the text of the Constitution. Just as the First Amendment was added to address fears of government censorship, the Second Amendment was added to address fears about government bans on private gun ownership.
Like it or not, the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is as old as the Second Amendment itself.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-the-bill-of-rights
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/tucker-and-the-us-constitution
I was reminded of Tucker's dusty tome in recent days after reading one liberal pundit after another smugly assert that the original meaning of the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, for example, denounced the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment as a "a hoax" peddled in recent years by the conniving National Rifle Association. Likewise, Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson complained that "the NRA's politicking has warped the Constitution itself" by tricking the Supreme Court into "recast[ing] the Second Amendment as a guarantee of individual gun rights."
Old St. George Tucker never encountered any "politicking" by the NRA. A veteran of the Revolutionary war and a one-time colleague of James Madison, Tucker watched in real time as Americans publicly debated whether or to ratify the Constitution, and then watched again as Americans debated whether or not to amend the Constitution by adopting the Bill of Rights. Afterwards Tucker sat down and wrote the country's first major constitutional treatise. And as far Tucker was concerned, there was simply no doubt that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to arms. "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty," Tucker wrote of the Second Amendment. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature."
The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment was widely held during the founding era. How do we know this? Because the historical evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. For example, consider the historical context in which the Second Amendment was first adopted.
When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 it lacked the Bill of Rights. Those first 10 amendments came along a few years later, added to the Constitution in response to objections made during ratification by the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to see some explicit protections added in order to safeguard key individual rights. As the pseudonymous Anti-Federalist pamphleteer "John DeWitt" put it, "the want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system, is a solid objection to it."
Library of CongressLibrary of CongressJames Madison, the primary architect of the new Constitution, took seriously such Anti-Federalist objections. "The great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution]," Madison told Congress in 1789, "dislike it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights." To remove such objections, Madison said, supporters of the Constitution should compromise and agree to include "such amendments in the constitution as will secure those rights, which [the Anti-Federalists] consider as not sufficiently guarded." Madison then proposed the batch of amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights.
What "particular rights" did the Anti-Federalists consider to be "not sufficiently guarded" by the new Constitution? One right that the Anti-Federalists brought up again and again was the individual right to arms.
For example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to "be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms."
Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state's ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."
One of the central purposes of the Second Amendment was to mollify such concerns by enshrining the individual right to arms squarely within the text of the Constitution. Just as the First Amendment was added to address fears of government censorship, the Second Amendment was added to address fears about government bans on private gun ownership.
Like it or not, the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is as old as the Second Amendment itself.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-the-bill-of-rights
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/tucker-and-the-us-constitution
"What Has Government Done For You?"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, June 19,, 2016 - All Rights Reserved
Life is indeed complicated and stressful! There is so much to do and so little time to do it. What with jobs, commutes, kids, homes, vacations, entertainment and sports, it's so hard to pay much attention to what our government is doing. But just because we look the other way does not diminish the affect of government’s actions on our daily lives, much less our bank accounts.
Many of government's actions are hard to see. Federal, state and local governments pass law after law and somehow we think we are immune from the consequences of those laws. Government is like a mosquito. You don't feel the actual penetration of your skin, only the itch after the mosquito has withdrawn its blood-sucking straw and buzzed away. Come to think of it, government is very much like a mosquito with its blood-sucking taxes and zillions of rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances that control every aspect of our lives. (the rules are the "itch" after the government has employed its weapon of choice by raiding your wallet ….. taxes.)
So what has government really done for you? Where do we start? Why not start with illegal immigration?
Your federal government (that's the 545 people who control almost everything in America - a president, 435 representatives, 100 Senators and 9 Supreme Court Justices) has seen fit to encourage (indeed provide a magnet) illegal immigration by not enforcing existing law and sealing our borders, as they are mandated to do. We are absolutely convinced they have done so on purpose. And for their skullduggery we get to pay for it all. The price tag for schools, language tutors, medical treatment, anchor babies, social services and lost jobs to legal Americans by illegal aliens, has been estimated at nearly $300 to $500 Billion per year. We had no say in this policy, as our representatives and senators know what is best for us. Well, don't they? Besides the cost, comes the premeditated, unconscionable erosion of our American sovereignty. And speaking of American sovereignty, let's not forget NAFTA, CAFTA, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (North American Union).
Now let's look at what the collusion of the radical, international environmentalists and the U. S. government together, have done for us.
1) The purposeful and unconstitutional theft of our property rights with environmental law after environmental law.
2) Severely restricts development of new crude oil resources on American soil for 30 years.
3) Stopped all construction of new power generation and refineries on American soil for 30 years.
4) Trying to take control of every mud puddle in America. (Clean Water Restoration Act) – EPA rules).
5) Instituting an ill-conceived and dastardly policy to turn "food" into fuel.
6) Brainwashing the entire American population (including our children in public schools and colleges) into believing that we are the cause of the destruction of our planet and must give up our cars and our lifestyle and pay for CO2 emissions. (wealth redistribution)
7) Along with all this brainwashing comes the propaganda and lies of man-caused global warming.
8) The mandated institution of a National Animal Index System (NAIS) to register every animal and every premise in America, that might be harboring livestock or other animals. It’s been shelved for now but it will be back.
9) But worst of all comes the treasonous degradation of the foundation of our laws, our constitution, by integrating UN and European social and environmental policies into law by presidential executive order and without the debate and ratification of such additions to our laws by the U. S. Congress, as required by the constitution. And what is the result of the government's collusion with the radical, international environmentalists? Rapidly accelerating costs of everything and the direct and inexcusable loss of our freedom and liberty.
Then we have the government's monetary policy under the Federal Reserve. But then the Federal Reserve isn't a government entity, is it? It is run by a bunch of elite bankers who tweak the supply of money (money that essentially has no intrinsic value) by moving the interest rate they charge other banks, up or down, in response to perceived events that they, in their infinite wisdom have determined that such changes are required. Unfortunately, they are usually wrong or go too far and set off a chain of events that they then try to over-correct and end up acting like a teenager just learning to drive. The Feds have the power to send us into a recession, or rapid inflation, or stagflation and they do. Who pays the price for their tomfoolery and their inability to properly make adjustments to a dynamic system? We do!
And of course, let's not forget the government's social policies. From the New Deal in the 1930's to President Johnson's Great Society, the blood-sucking government has eaten up trillions of our tax dollars to solve a problem (or is it buy votes with our money) that shows no signs of getting any better. In so doing, they have robbed the pride, self-reliance, independence and a can-do spirit out of millions of Americans who have sold their souls and their freedom for a piece of the American hard-working producer's sweat equity. Instead of growing in independence, they have grown totally dependent. These folks that drink at the "well" of the government's largess, become unproductive and an increasing load on the rest of us.
Finally, the good 'Ole Federal government passes law after law that then filters down to state and local governments. This then creates law-driven symptoms that have us all running around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to stop the state and local governments from making our lives even more miserable than the Feds have already done. In our actions to thwart these government-manufactured "symptoms", we take our collective "eyes" off of the ball that is the direct cause of all these local symptoms; the 545 people that control everything in America. Socialists and radical environmentalists camp at government's door, vying for any favor they can get from government, in return for money, votes, or perks offered by the lobbyists. Our system of government has become so corrupt that only a revolution can ever bring sanity to what is now hopelessly insane and out of control.
There is so much more that government has done for (or is it TO) us but there isn't enough space here to describe them all. So what HAS government done for you? They have taken our pride, our hard-earned money and our liberty, for policies that far exceed the limits of commons sense, much less the individual, inalienable rights, that are the irrevocable gift of our creator.
But then, what with jobs, commutes, kids, homes, vacations, entertainment and sports, it's so hard to pay much attention to what our government is doing.
Wasn't it President Ronald Reagan who said. "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He also said: "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
If only government would just get out of the way and let the spirit of a free American people prosper and save themselves and the rest of the world, like some have said we were pre-ordained to do. The sad truth is that, government will not get out of the way unless the people force them.
We describe some of these conditions in our new video:
"AMERICA, LAND OF THE SLAVE AND HOME OF THE FREE ….. MEAL!"
Click on the link to view the video.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
Many of government's actions are hard to see. Federal, state and local governments pass law after law and somehow we think we are immune from the consequences of those laws. Government is like a mosquito. You don't feel the actual penetration of your skin, only the itch after the mosquito has withdrawn its blood-sucking straw and buzzed away. Come to think of it, government is very much like a mosquito with its blood-sucking taxes and zillions of rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances that control every aspect of our lives. (the rules are the "itch" after the government has employed its weapon of choice by raiding your wallet ….. taxes.)
So what has government really done for you? Where do we start? Why not start with illegal immigration?
Your federal government (that's the 545 people who control almost everything in America - a president, 435 representatives, 100 Senators and 9 Supreme Court Justices) has seen fit to encourage (indeed provide a magnet) illegal immigration by not enforcing existing law and sealing our borders, as they are mandated to do. We are absolutely convinced they have done so on purpose. And for their skullduggery we get to pay for it all. The price tag for schools, language tutors, medical treatment, anchor babies, social services and lost jobs to legal Americans by illegal aliens, has been estimated at nearly $300 to $500 Billion per year. We had no say in this policy, as our representatives and senators know what is best for us. Well, don't they? Besides the cost, comes the premeditated, unconscionable erosion of our American sovereignty. And speaking of American sovereignty, let's not forget NAFTA, CAFTA, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (North American Union).
Now let's look at what the collusion of the radical, international environmentalists and the U. S. government together, have done for us.
1) The purposeful and unconstitutional theft of our property rights with environmental law after environmental law.
2) Severely restricts development of new crude oil resources on American soil for 30 years.
3) Stopped all construction of new power generation and refineries on American soil for 30 years.
4) Trying to take control of every mud puddle in America. (Clean Water Restoration Act) – EPA rules).
5) Instituting an ill-conceived and dastardly policy to turn "food" into fuel.
6) Brainwashing the entire American population (including our children in public schools and colleges) into believing that we are the cause of the destruction of our planet and must give up our cars and our lifestyle and pay for CO2 emissions. (wealth redistribution)
7) Along with all this brainwashing comes the propaganda and lies of man-caused global warming.
8) The mandated institution of a National Animal Index System (NAIS) to register every animal and every premise in America, that might be harboring livestock or other animals. It’s been shelved for now but it will be back.
9) But worst of all comes the treasonous degradation of the foundation of our laws, our constitution, by integrating UN and European social and environmental policies into law by presidential executive order and without the debate and ratification of such additions to our laws by the U. S. Congress, as required by the constitution. And what is the result of the government's collusion with the radical, international environmentalists? Rapidly accelerating costs of everything and the direct and inexcusable loss of our freedom and liberty.
Then we have the government's monetary policy under the Federal Reserve. But then the Federal Reserve isn't a government entity, is it? It is run by a bunch of elite bankers who tweak the supply of money (money that essentially has no intrinsic value) by moving the interest rate they charge other banks, up or down, in response to perceived events that they, in their infinite wisdom have determined that such changes are required. Unfortunately, they are usually wrong or go too far and set off a chain of events that they then try to over-correct and end up acting like a teenager just learning to drive. The Feds have the power to send us into a recession, or rapid inflation, or stagflation and they do. Who pays the price for their tomfoolery and their inability to properly make adjustments to a dynamic system? We do!
And of course, let's not forget the government's social policies. From the New Deal in the 1930's to President Johnson's Great Society, the blood-sucking government has eaten up trillions of our tax dollars to solve a problem (or is it buy votes with our money) that shows no signs of getting any better. In so doing, they have robbed the pride, self-reliance, independence and a can-do spirit out of millions of Americans who have sold their souls and their freedom for a piece of the American hard-working producer's sweat equity. Instead of growing in independence, they have grown totally dependent. These folks that drink at the "well" of the government's largess, become unproductive and an increasing load on the rest of us.
Finally, the good 'Ole Federal government passes law after law that then filters down to state and local governments. This then creates law-driven symptoms that have us all running around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to stop the state and local governments from making our lives even more miserable than the Feds have already done. In our actions to thwart these government-manufactured "symptoms", we take our collective "eyes" off of the ball that is the direct cause of all these local symptoms; the 545 people that control everything in America. Socialists and radical environmentalists camp at government's door, vying for any favor they can get from government, in return for money, votes, or perks offered by the lobbyists. Our system of government has become so corrupt that only a revolution can ever bring sanity to what is now hopelessly insane and out of control.
There is so much more that government has done for (or is it TO) us but there isn't enough space here to describe them all. So what HAS government done for you? They have taken our pride, our hard-earned money and our liberty, for policies that far exceed the limits of commons sense, much less the individual, inalienable rights, that are the irrevocable gift of our creator.
But then, what with jobs, commutes, kids, homes, vacations, entertainment and sports, it's so hard to pay much attention to what our government is doing.
Wasn't it President Ronald Reagan who said. "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He also said: "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
If only government would just get out of the way and let the spirit of a free American people prosper and save themselves and the rest of the world, like some have said we were pre-ordained to do. The sad truth is that, government will not get out of the way unless the people force them.
We describe some of these conditions in our new video:
"AMERICA, LAND OF THE SLAVE AND HOME OF THE FREE ….. MEAL!"
Click on the link to view the video.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
ORLANDO MASSACRE AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AFTERMATH
Editors Note: Normally I would not put this here. But, In the aftermath of the Orlando Terrorist Massacre and it's probable impact on the Second Amendment, I feel justified to sound the voice of reason on this issue. Now as always, the Overreaching Progressive Faction in the Federal Government is again blaming the tool instead if the agenda and the persons responsible for the tragedy. Again we have yet another Mass Murder in a "Gun Free Zone". It is my contention that we now need to stop all the rhetoric towards the Liberal agenda to disarm the law abiding public, and preventing them from having the means to defend themselves. I feel we now need to put extreme pressure on Congress against the agenda of the Gun Grabbers It was Congress heeding the loud demands of those who agenda is to totally disarm the public for politically correct reasons that contrived the concept of "Gun Free Zones" and put in place to "Make Us Safer". How well has that worked out for the multitude of innocent victims? How many fewer bodies of innocent people would there have been if armed Law Abiding Citizens had been on hand to stop the murderers at the beginning of their rampage? It is my considered opinion that Congress has erred in not abiding by the intent of the Second Amendment, and because of that collective decision, has endangered the lives of every American Citizen by removing their capability to defend themselves!
In The Aftermath Of Orlando, This Is Most Intelligent Argument Against Gun Control And Against Gun Free Zones I Have Seen
Source; http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016/06/13/another-shooting-tragedy-gun-free-zone/?utm_source=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3
by Dan Mitchell
In The Aftermath Of Orlando, This Is Most Intelligent Argument Against Gun Control And Against Gun Free Zones I Have Seen
Source; http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016/06/13/another-shooting-tragedy-gun-free-zone/?utm_source=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3
by Dan Mitchell
It’s happened again. A nut went to a gun-free zone and engaged in a mass killingIn this example, the perpetrator apparently was an Islamic fanatic upset about gay people.
But let’s set aside the question of motive and ask the important question of why politicians and bureaucrats don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being armed!).
The invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the issue.
Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point). …In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets. It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves.
By the way, if you think that allowing guns in bars is somehow a recipe for carnage, consider the fact that it’s already legal in many states to have concealed carry or open carry where alcohol is served, yet we never read stories about mass shootings in these states.
Among the recent states that allow permitted concealed handguns in places that get more than 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol are: Georgia (2014), Louisiana (2014), North Dakota (2015), North Carolina(2014), Ohio (2011), South Carolina (2014), and Tennessee (2009). Besides Florida, other states that prohibit them are: Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Many of the states that allow one to carry a gun in a bar still prohibit you to consume alcohol. Here are some other state laws: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan (allows you to open carry if you have a concealed handgun permit), and Montana (allows you to openly carry a gun into a bar), and Oregon.
But let’s set aside the question of motive and ask the important question of why politicians and bureaucrats don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being armed!).
The invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the issue.
Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point). …In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets. It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves.
By the way, if you think that allowing guns in bars is somehow a recipe for carnage, consider the fact that it’s already legal in many states to have concealed carry or open carry where alcohol is served, yet we never read stories about mass shootings in these states.
Among the recent states that allow permitted concealed handguns in places that get more than 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol are: Georgia (2014), Louisiana (2014), North Dakota (2015), North Carolina(2014), Ohio (2011), South Carolina (2014), and Tennessee (2009). Besides Florida, other states that prohibit them are: Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Many of the states that allow one to carry a gun in a bar still prohibit you to consume alcohol. Here are some other state laws: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan (allows you to open carry if you have a concealed handgun permit), and Montana (allows you to openly carry a gun into a bar), and Oregon.
To be sure, it’s possible at some point that some moron with a gun will do something wrong in one of these states, so it’s not as if there’s no possible downside to having guns legally in places where alcohol is served.
But the really bad people are far more dangerous, and their evil actions are enabled and facilitated by gun-free zones.
For my safety and the protection of my children, I want there to be more well-armed law-abiding people, whether in bars or anyplace else in society.
Including schools.
Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School explains in the New York Times that gun-free zones on campuses simply don’t work.
…colleges pretend that disarming responsible adults makes their students safer. The university at which I work, for example, forbids faculty, staff and students to bring their weapons to school, even if they have a concealed-carry permit issued by the government. …The university police are unable to prevent violent crimes, and it is heartlessly arrogant to disarm potential victims, leaving them and those they could protect at the mercy of rapists and other predators. Armed citizens frequently save lives and prevent violent crimes, often without firing a shot. Nearly all mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” and some of these massacres have been stopped by civilians who intervened after retrieving a gun.
He points out that the evidence favoring concealed carry is overwhelming.
…states have adopted laws allowing law-abiding adults to carry a concealed handgun in public. About 13 million Americans now have concealed-carry permits, and 11 states do not even require a permit. As the number of armed citizens has skyrocketed, violent crime has gone down, not up, and permit holders almost never abuse their rights. In Florida, for example, where permits have been available for almost thirty years, they have been revoked for firearm misuse at an annual rate of 0.0003 percent; even the police have higher rates of firearms violations (and higher overall crime rates) than permit holders.
So what’s the bottom line?
Professor Lund has an understandably low opinion of the “callous” school bureaucrats who think grief counselors are better than self defense.
When murders and even massacres occur, …university bureaucrats will undoubtedly absolve themselves of guilt, wash the blood from their demonstrably unsafe spaces, and call in the grief counselors. Some state legislatures have put a stop to these callous disarmament policies.
But the really bad people are far more dangerous, and their evil actions are enabled and facilitated by gun-free zones.
For my safety and the protection of my children, I want there to be more well-armed law-abiding people, whether in bars or anyplace else in society.
Including schools.
Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School explains in the New York Times that gun-free zones on campuses simply don’t work.
…colleges pretend that disarming responsible adults makes their students safer. The university at which I work, for example, forbids faculty, staff and students to bring their weapons to school, even if they have a concealed-carry permit issued by the government. …The university police are unable to prevent violent crimes, and it is heartlessly arrogant to disarm potential victims, leaving them and those they could protect at the mercy of rapists and other predators. Armed citizens frequently save lives and prevent violent crimes, often without firing a shot. Nearly all mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” and some of these massacres have been stopped by civilians who intervened after retrieving a gun.
He points out that the evidence favoring concealed carry is overwhelming.
…states have adopted laws allowing law-abiding adults to carry a concealed handgun in public. About 13 million Americans now have concealed-carry permits, and 11 states do not even require a permit. As the number of armed citizens has skyrocketed, violent crime has gone down, not up, and permit holders almost never abuse their rights. In Florida, for example, where permits have been available for almost thirty years, they have been revoked for firearm misuse at an annual rate of 0.0003 percent; even the police have higher rates of firearms violations (and higher overall crime rates) than permit holders.
So what’s the bottom line?
Professor Lund has an understandably low opinion of the “callous” school bureaucrats who think grief counselors are better than self defense.
When murders and even massacres occur, …university bureaucrats will undoubtedly absolve themselves of guilt, wash the blood from their demonstrably unsafe spaces, and call in the grief counselors. Some state legislatures have put a stop to these callous disarmament policies.
.The moral of the story is that lawful people should have the right to defend themselves and others.
The police play an important role, of course, but they generally show up after bad things have happened. Which is why the vast majority of cops oppose gun control (and even a growing number of police chiefs, who often are corrupted by being political appointees, now say private gun ownership is important to deter bad guys).
That’s why legal gun ownership is important, particularly for communities that are targeted for violence, such as European Jews, or for people such as teachers who could be in a position to protect others who have no ability to defend themselves.
The good news on this sad day is that more and more states are moving policy in the right direction. Hopefully something good will come out of this tragedy and there will be further moves to help law-abiding people defend themselves from evil.
Of course, I won’t be surprised if the people who can’t pass this IQ test argue instead for more gun control.
Out of the Mouths of Babes, Here's what a 16 year old had to say about the unnecessary Orlando Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack and Murders;
The police play an important role, of course, but they generally show up after bad things have happened. Which is why the vast majority of cops oppose gun control (and even a growing number of police chiefs, who often are corrupted by being political appointees, now say private gun ownership is important to deter bad guys).
That’s why legal gun ownership is important, particularly for communities that are targeted for violence, such as European Jews, or for people such as teachers who could be in a position to protect others who have no ability to defend themselves.
The good news on this sad day is that more and more states are moving policy in the right direction. Hopefully something good will come out of this tragedy and there will be further moves to help law-abiding people defend themselves from evil.
Of course, I won’t be surprised if the people who can’t pass this IQ test argue instead for more gun control.
Out of the Mouths of Babes, Here's what a 16 year old had to say about the unnecessary Orlando Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack and Murders;
FINAL NOTE:
One extremely important fact to remember is; The Vast Majority Of Muslims World Wide Are Honorable, Peaceful, God Fearing People. They Are Getting The Bad Reputation From The Few Who Use Their Religion For Power, Politics, and Personal Gain.
The real and only problem is: The Elitist Liberals in positions of power, and who have armed security for their personal protection, have put in place laws and regulations to make the rest of us victims, who must cower and beg for the protection of an indifferent and hostile government as serfs had to under the Kings, instead of having the capability to exercise our God given right of self protection.
One extremely important fact to remember is; The Vast Majority Of Muslims World Wide Are Honorable, Peaceful, God Fearing People. They Are Getting The Bad Reputation From The Few Who Use Their Religion For Power, Politics, and Personal Gain.
The real and only problem is: The Elitist Liberals in positions of power, and who have armed security for their personal protection, have put in place laws and regulations to make the rest of us victims, who must cower and beg for the protection of an indifferent and hostile government as serfs had to under the Kings, instead of having the capability to exercise our God given right of self protection.
It's reasons like these that form the Mandate for a States Petitioned for Article V Amendment Proposal Convention. Both Parties have overstepped their Constitutional Boundaries and need to be reigned in. Imagine how the United States would be today had they not chosen the paths they took like these!
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and RacismSource; http://russp.us/racism.htm
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and RacismThe following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Recommended ReadingBack to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett
2011RussP.us
Ed. Note:
You can read more in depth information about both major political parties, and even third parties, on the "History of Political Parties" under the 'History Tab' on the main page banner on this site!
These Histories are other solid reasons why it is imperative to push for and support a States Petitioned For; Amendment Proposal Convention.
To Repeal Toxic Amendments.
And to Propose Amendments Needed For The 21st Century.
Amendments From The People, To Return & Keep Our Government Under Control Of The States & The People!
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and RacismSource; http://russp.us/racism.htm
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and RacismThe following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Recommended ReadingBack to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett
2011RussP.us
Ed. Note:
You can read more in depth information about both major political parties, and even third parties, on the "History of Political Parties" under the 'History Tab' on the main page banner on this site!
These Histories are other solid reasons why it is imperative to push for and support a States Petitioned For; Amendment Proposal Convention.
To Repeal Toxic Amendments.
And to Propose Amendments Needed For The 21st Century.
Amendments From The People, To Return & Keep Our Government Under Control Of The States & The People!
Oligarchy Of Thieves May 8, 2014
By KrisAnne Hall
Our government has been infected by Federal Supremacists. They commonly assert that the Supreme Court has the power to ultimately interpret the Constitution through judicial review and therefore sovereignly determine the limits of the power delegated to the federal government. They sometimes assert that federal law itself is superior to the Constitution. In reality, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to limit or expand the power of government. Neither does Congress have the authority to pass a law that is contrary to the Constitution itself. To allow such action means that the Constitution has NO MEANING and the government has NO LIMIT.
The power being wielded against the states and the people is stolen power. It is power neither authorized nor delegated. Dear friends, this is NOT what a Constitutional Republic looks like…this is a KINGDOM of stolen power, an oligarchy of thieves.
Here are FIVE simple FACTS that must be taught to our Representatives, so they can honor their oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, rather than their politics of stolen power. Review these points and the words from our framers and ask yourself how much simpler can it be.________________________________________________________________________________
FACT #1:The Constitution is a compact (contract) that must be legally interpreted using contract law. Contract law dictates that a contract is properly interpreted through the framers of the contract and their intent, i.e. the “meeting of the minds.”
“the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact–as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…” James Madison
“…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties;” in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties.” James Madison
FACT #2: The federal government does not have the authority to determine the limits of federal power, since it is not a party to the compact but a creation of the compact.
“for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration…the obvious tendency and inevitable result… would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison
FACT #3:The Supreme Court is PART of the federal government not OVER it and possesses no power greater than the executive or legislative branches.
“dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature…” James Madison
FACT #4: To allow the federal government (i.e. SCOTUS) to determine its own limits is CONTRARY to the Constitution, to the principles of a Republic, and to the limited and defined nature of our government.
“The doctrine…which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the…Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.” John Calhoun
FACT #5: The federal government cannot write laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Supremacy Clause
After review of these FACTS it is very difficult to accept the argument that we are simply subject to the federal government’s will and whim. These facts need to be shared far and wide. Shouldn’t we be able to rely on words of the “father of the Constitution” instead of the judges, lawyers, and politicians who have been taught that THEY are the supreme determiners of their own power?
http://krisannehall.com/oligarchy-thieves/
Consideration of a Convention to Propose Amendments Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution
Source; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/consideration-of-a-convention-to-propose-amendments-under-article-v-of-the-us-constitution
Consideration of a Convention to Propose Amendments Under Article V of the U.S. ConstitutionBy John Malcolm
KEY POINTS
ABOUT THE AUTHORJOHN MALCOLMDIRECTOR, EDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES, AND THE ED GILBERTSON AND SHERRY LINDBERG GILBERTSON SENIOR LEGAL FELLOWEDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES
Under Article V of Constitution, Congress, upon application of two-thirds of the states, must call a convention for proposing amendments. Proponents argue that an Article V convention, completely bypassing Congress, the President, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy, would give the states and the people a more direct role in determining how much power the federal government should have and whether some of its existing power should be returned to the states and the people. The process specified in Article V raises many questions that require careful consideration: how such a convention would work, what types of amendments it might produce, and whether some of those amendments would successfully rein in the federal government and reinvigorate federalism. With or without such a convention, however, it remains vitally important that we continue to maintain an overriding focus on holding Congress, the President, and, by extension, federal agencies accountable for the decisions they make today. Many Americans worry about the ever-increasing size, scope, and reach of the federal government. They point out that it spends beyond its means and for the most part operates outside of the strictures of the Constitution. They also point to various rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that have effectively changed the structure and character of the Constitution without formally changing the text and, in the process, have facilitated the dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, the people, and civil society.[1]This has been exacerbated by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state (facilitated in part by Congress’s excessive delegation of its own legislative power to executive branch agencies[2]), coupled with the extreme deference that the Court has shown to those agencies,[3] something that the Framers of the Constitution would likely have found unimaginable.[4]
After more than a century of vast expansion of the federal government’s functions and the vesting of broad authority in large numbers of agencies of a federal administrative state, there seems to be little room left for the principle of federalism that respects the traditional role of the states in our federal system and little meaning left to the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
A number of Americans view Congress as intransigent (especially when it comes to proposing constitutional amendments that would rein in its power to tax and spend without limit or to limit the reelection of incumbent Senators or Representatives) and the Supreme Court as having strayed from the text of the Constitution. Many of them conclude that the American people need to go around Congress and convince state legislatures to initiate the process under Article V of the Constitution, which forces Congress, upon application of two-thirds of the states, to call a convention for proposing amendments.[5] The text of Article V provides a limited role for Congress (calling the convention), no role for the Supreme Court, and no role for the President.[6]
Article V proponents argue that such structural problems, resulting in a form of federal tyranny, can be remedied best (and perhaps only) through an Article V convention, which would give the states and the people a more direct role in determining just how much power the federal government should have and whether some of its existing power should be returned to the states and the people. Article V, they contend, would enable the states to convene for the purpose of proposing and considering amendments among themselves, completely bypassing Congress, the President, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy.
The process specified in Article V for a convention to propose amendments raises many questions that require careful consideration. Questions arise concerning how such a convention would work, what types of amendments it might produce, and whether some of the proposed amendments would successfully rein in the federal government and reinvigorate federalism.
Amending the Constitution: In 1833, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stressed the importance of having a process to amend the nation’s charter:
It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people. A government, forever changing and changeable, is, indeed, in a state bordering upon anarchy and confusion. A government, which, in its own organization, provides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution. It is wise, therefore, in every government, and especially in a republic, to provide means for altering, and improving the fabric of government, as time and experience, or the new phases of human affairs, may render proper, to promote the happiness and safety of the people. The great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to open a way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory.[7]Article V, which outlines the mechanism for amending the Constitution, provides two different ways in which constitutional amendments may be proposed: (1) by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate or (2) by a convention called by Congress on the application of two-thirds of the states. Specifically, Article V states that:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,[8] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,[9] or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….The Constitution of the United States has been amended 27 times.[10] A convention of the states for proposing amendments has never been convened. Thus far, all 27 amendments originated in Congress and were subsequently sent to the states for ratification.
Over the years, many states have submitted applications for Congress to call an Article V convention on a variety of topics.[11] Although an Article V constitutional convention[12] has never been called, the states have come close to amassing applications from two-thirds of the states, and on those occasions, the mere threat of being forced to call a convention appears to have prompted Congress to act.
Article V and the Constitutional ConventionAddressing Article V, James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43:
It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.[18]In other words, Article V was designed to strike a balance by effecting a compromise between those who might wish to treat the Constitution as if it were a mere piece of legislation that could be amended easily and often and those who would wish to make it virtually impossible to amend our founding charter regardless of the circumstances and perceived need to do so. Above all, Article V ensures through the ratification process that amendments have substantial support among the people by requiring ratification of the proposed amendment by three-fourths of the states (38 at present) before it could take effect.
Article V was first introduced at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on May 29, 1787, as part of the Virginia Plan,[19] which provided that the “Articles of Union” should be amended “whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not be required thereto.”[20] This provision was referred to in the Convention’s Committee of Detail, which revised the draft to state that “[t]his Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that Purpose.”[21] It was subsequently revised when some, especially Alexander Hamilton, objected that this would give the states too much power over Congress.[22]
A compromise, first proposed by James Madison and eventually adopted with only slight modification,[23] was the dual method for proposing amendments, including a mechanism in which Congress would be required to call a convention to propose amendments once two-thirds of the states filed an application requesting it. This would reduce the ability of Congress to block amendments that two-thirds of the states desired; as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 85, “[t]he Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” He added, “[w]e may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”[24] Virginia delegate George Mason was particularly adamant on this point, believing that any procedure that required congressional approval of amendments would be improper “because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”[25]
Some Current Proposals to Convene a Constitutional ConventionNumerous participants in our nation’s public life have urged the states to apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments and have suggested pursuing particular amendments. For example, in The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, prominent conservative Mark Levin expresses enthusiastic support for an Article V convention and recommends 10 amendments aimed at reducing the power of the federal government. They include imposing term limits; repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators; and allowing state legislatures to bypass Congress and amend the Constitution by a two-thirds majority.
Levin, who candidly admits that he was once skeptical of the wisdom of calling for an Article V convention, explains why he now believes the states should force Congress to call such a convention:
The state convention process bypasses the intractable architects of this calamity, who have obstructed and sabotaged all other routes to constitutional adherence. It is a bottom-up, grassroots initiative that empowers the citizenry, organizing in neighborhoods and communities, and working through the state legislatures, to stem federal domination, reverse course, and escape ruin.[26]It is important to emphasize, of course, that there are wish lists of constitutional amendments from people across the political spectrum. In his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,[27] retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens proposes six constitutional amendments, including one that would overrule the Supreme Court’s decision inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller,[28] which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; a second that would overrule the Court’s decision in Printz v. United States[29] and enable the federal government to order state officials to carry out federal duties; a third that would overturn the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[30] and allow Congress and the states to circumscribe the First Amendment by setting strict limits on the amount of money that candidates or their supporters can spend on pure political speech during election campaigns; and a fourth that would abolish capital punishment.
One organization—Wolf PAC—seeks to overturn Citizens United and has called for “a limited amendments convention for the purpose of proposing a Free and Fair Elections Amendment to the United States Constitution.”[31] According to its website, four state legislatures (California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Vermont) have already applied for this kind of convention.[32]
Eleven states comprising 165 electoral votes, seeking in effect to negate the Electoral College provided for in the Constitution,[33] have agreed in principle to abide by the National Popular Vote plan, under which states would agree to pledge their electoral votes to the ticket that wins the popular vote around the country. The plan would be “activated” once the number of states totaling 270 electoral votes signed on to the plan.[34]
Among conservatives and libertarians, the most prominent proposals include those of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, the Convention of the States Project, and the Compact for America.[35]
The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force is a grassroots-driven organization that is seeking to have states apply to Congress to call a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. The task force has drafted model state applications and legislation designed to limit the delegates’ authority to consideration of an amendment to balance the federal budget. According to the group’s website, 27 of the required number of 34 states have submitted balanced budget amendment applications.[36]
In 2014, a group called Citizens for Self-Governance began its “Convention of the States” project,[37] which urges states to apply to Congress to call a convention to draft amendments that will limit federal power and address what they identify as “four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government”: the spending and debt crisis, the regulatory crisis, congressional attacks on state sovereignty, and the federal takeover of the decision-making process.[38] Although the group has not proposed specific language for a constitutional amendment, its members support amendments that would balance the budget, redefine the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, prohibit the use of international treaties and international law to govern domestic law, impose term limits on Members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, place an upper limit on federal taxation, and require the sunsetting of all existing federal taxes and a supermajority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes.
The group has produced a model resolution for state legislators to use when applying for a convention. Thus far, this resolution, which was recently endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, has been passed by five states (Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, and Alabama) and is being considered by several others.[39]
Compact for America[40] urges states to enter into a binding interstate “compact” in which they would legally obligate themselves to support the calling of a convention for the sole purpose of having delegates cast a straight up-or-down vote on a pre-drafted balanced budget amendment.
[41] This amendment seeks to limit federal spending by:
Thus far, four states (Georgia, Alaska, Mississippi, and North Dakota) have joined the compact. By its own terms, the compact expires seven years “after the first State passes legislation enacting, adopting and agreeing to be bound by this Compact,” which, according to the organization’s website, will be April 12, 2021.
Can an Article V Convention Be Limited?Many open questions remain about the process of amending the Constitution by means of an Article V convention. Such questions include:
Some prominent scholars contend that a “Convention for proposing Amendments” is just that—a convention to propose amendments, any amendments, for the convention delegates to consider—and that it cannot be limited to a particular, pre-drafted amendment or to a limited subject matter. Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, for instance, argues that this understanding is in keeping with the commonly understood meaning of “convention” at the time the Constitution was ratified: a deliberative political body, which, by implication, cannot be constrained in its deliberations. Moreover, Paulsen contends, it would be quite odd to argue that Congress could decline to send to the states for ratification any amendment it deemed beyond the scope of the convention since the whole point of creating the constitutional convention mechanism was to reduce the role of Congress in the state-initiated amendment process.[50]
Although some scholars disagree with this characterization,[51] it is worth remembering that the delegates to the Philadelphia convention who drafted Article V had responded to a call by the Confederation Congress for a convention to consider whatever amendments to the Articles of Confederation they might deem necessary,[52] which they exceeded, only to see their actions subsequently approved by the nation through the ratification process.
Other scholars contend that a limited convention would be constitutional and that if the states applied for a convention limited to a particular subject or pre-drafted amendment, Congress would be required to call such a convention, and the convention would be obliged to consider only that particular subject matter or amendment.[53]
Some scholars argue that “a Convention for proposing Amendments” can be fairly interpreted to encompass either an unlimited convention or a limited one and that if Congress is obligated to call a convention upon receipt of the requisite number of applications, then it is perfectly reasonable that Congress should be obligated to call a convention that conforms to any limitations contained in all of those applications. Others have noted that the initial draft of Article V by the Committee of Detail provided that “[t]his Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States of the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that purpose”[54] and that the inclusion of the phrase “for that purpose” indicates that the drafter intended for states to have the ability to call for a limited convention to address particular subjects rather than to review the Constitution in its entirety.[55]
Still others have argued that the historical evidence from the time of the Framers was that conventions served a variety of purposes—some limited and some plenary—and did not have a fixed purpose and that the structure of Article V implies an equivalence between the two triggering mechanisms: Congress’s power to propose amendments is limited to those amendments that two-thirds of both houses of Congress deem necessary, and the same is true for the states’ power, which is limited to those amendments that two-thirds of the states deem necessary.[56]
ConclusionMany questions surrounding Article V of the Constitution merit thorough and careful consideration. Although James Madison did not object at the Philadelphia Convention to including an amendments convention in Article V, he warned “that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.”[57] Michael Stern, former Senior Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and a strong proponent of the Article V convention process, has stated that “[i]t must be acknowledged…that the purely legal issue of whether an Article V Convention may be limited cannot be definitely resolved. Constitutional scholars have long debated the question, and it is widely recognized to be a quintessentially open one.”[58]
These questions loom large over the current calls of some advocates and state legislatures for such a convention and might well lead to attempts to frustrate the will of states that call for a limited convention by those who oppose the concept of a limited convention, want to use the convention to consider other subjects, or do not like the results of such a convention. Such challenges could take various forms including lawsuits that could take years and lead to unpredictable results. This is not an argument against proceeding with a constitutional convention—after all, the Bill of Rights emerged at a time when no procedures or customs existed for implementing Article V—so much as it is an observation that those who are pursuing a call for a convention to consider a particular amendment or subject area they favor must recognize the risk that a convention might consider and yield amendments that they dislike on other subjects.
An Article V convention might propose an amendment to restore or expand the liberties of the American people, but it also could propose an amendment that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. While it is no doubt true that the ratification process itself, requiring support from three-fourths of the states (38 at present), decreases the likelihood of some radical proposal ultimately becoming part of our Constitution, it is worth recalling that 27 of the 33 proposed amendments that have been sent to the states for ratification achieved the requisite number, and that was before the age of the Internet and social media–driven campaigns that can dramatically increase public pressure on those who are considering such an amendment and reduce the time devoted to thoughtful reflection.
Some argue that the risks of an Article V convention in the face of legal uncertainty are simply too great. Professor Gerald Gunther, a prominent constitutional law scholar, for instance, has warned that the road “promises controversy and confusion and confrontation at every turn.”[59]Michael Stern, on the other hand, argues that:
It can scarcely be denied that the limited powers granted to the Congress in Article I of the Constitution have not proved to be a meaningful check on the expansion of federal power. The Article V Convention, if available as intended to check the “encroachments of the national authority,” would mitigate this risk.[60]Some day we may get the answers to some of the difficult and open questions about the state-initiated Article V process. If proponents of calling an Article V Convention succeed, that day may be coming soon. Regardless of the particular merits of the proposals[61] and whether these efforts ultimately result in a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, getting people engaged in a robust discussion of important issues regarding self-governance and the proper role of the federal and state governments in the lives of the American people is a constructive and positive development.
The possibility of an Article V convention of the states has a great deal of appeal to many. With such a convention or without one, however, it remains vitally important that we continue to maintain an overriding focus on holding Congress and the President and, by extension, federal agencies accountable for the decisions they make today.
—John G. Malcolm is Director of and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Consideration of a Convention to Propose Amendments Under Article V of the U.S. ConstitutionBy John Malcolm
KEY POINTS
- Under Article V of the Constitution, constitutional amendments may be proposed by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention called by Congress on the application of two-thirds of the states.
- The text of Article V provides a limited role for Congress (calling the convention), no role for the Supreme Court, and no role for the President.
- Article V was designed to strike a balance between those who might wish to treat the Constitution as if it were a mere piece of legislation that could be amended easily and often and those who would wish to make it virtually impossible to amend our founding charter regardless of the perceived need to do so.
- Above all, Article V ensures through the ratification process that amendments have substantial support among the people by requiring ratification of the proposed amendment by three-fourths of the states before it could take effect.
ABOUT THE AUTHORJOHN MALCOLMDIRECTOR, EDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES, AND THE ED GILBERTSON AND SHERRY LINDBERG GILBERTSON SENIOR LEGAL FELLOWEDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES
Under Article V of Constitution, Congress, upon application of two-thirds of the states, must call a convention for proposing amendments. Proponents argue that an Article V convention, completely bypassing Congress, the President, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy, would give the states and the people a more direct role in determining how much power the federal government should have and whether some of its existing power should be returned to the states and the people. The process specified in Article V raises many questions that require careful consideration: how such a convention would work, what types of amendments it might produce, and whether some of those amendments would successfully rein in the federal government and reinvigorate federalism. With or without such a convention, however, it remains vitally important that we continue to maintain an overriding focus on holding Congress, the President, and, by extension, federal agencies accountable for the decisions they make today. Many Americans worry about the ever-increasing size, scope, and reach of the federal government. They point out that it spends beyond its means and for the most part operates outside of the strictures of the Constitution. They also point to various rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that have effectively changed the structure and character of the Constitution without formally changing the text and, in the process, have facilitated the dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, the people, and civil society.[1]This has been exacerbated by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state (facilitated in part by Congress’s excessive delegation of its own legislative power to executive branch agencies[2]), coupled with the extreme deference that the Court has shown to those agencies,[3] something that the Framers of the Constitution would likely have found unimaginable.[4]
After more than a century of vast expansion of the federal government’s functions and the vesting of broad authority in large numbers of agencies of a federal administrative state, there seems to be little room left for the principle of federalism that respects the traditional role of the states in our federal system and little meaning left to the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
A number of Americans view Congress as intransigent (especially when it comes to proposing constitutional amendments that would rein in its power to tax and spend without limit or to limit the reelection of incumbent Senators or Representatives) and the Supreme Court as having strayed from the text of the Constitution. Many of them conclude that the American people need to go around Congress and convince state legislatures to initiate the process under Article V of the Constitution, which forces Congress, upon application of two-thirds of the states, to call a convention for proposing amendments.[5] The text of Article V provides a limited role for Congress (calling the convention), no role for the Supreme Court, and no role for the President.[6]
Article V proponents argue that such structural problems, resulting in a form of federal tyranny, can be remedied best (and perhaps only) through an Article V convention, which would give the states and the people a more direct role in determining just how much power the federal government should have and whether some of its existing power should be returned to the states and the people. Article V, they contend, would enable the states to convene for the purpose of proposing and considering amendments among themselves, completely bypassing Congress, the President, the courts, and the federal bureaucracy.
The process specified in Article V for a convention to propose amendments raises many questions that require careful consideration. Questions arise concerning how such a convention would work, what types of amendments it might produce, and whether some of the proposed amendments would successfully rein in the federal government and reinvigorate federalism.
Amending the Constitution: In 1833, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stressed the importance of having a process to amend the nation’s charter:
It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people. A government, forever changing and changeable, is, indeed, in a state bordering upon anarchy and confusion. A government, which, in its own organization, provides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution. It is wise, therefore, in every government, and especially in a republic, to provide means for altering, and improving the fabric of government, as time and experience, or the new phases of human affairs, may render proper, to promote the happiness and safety of the people. The great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to open a way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory.[7]Article V, which outlines the mechanism for amending the Constitution, provides two different ways in which constitutional amendments may be proposed: (1) by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate or (2) by a convention called by Congress on the application of two-thirds of the states. Specifically, Article V states that:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,[8] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,[9] or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….The Constitution of the United States has been amended 27 times.[10] A convention of the states for proposing amendments has never been convened. Thus far, all 27 amendments originated in Congress and were subsequently sent to the states for ratification.
Over the years, many states have submitted applications for Congress to call an Article V convention on a variety of topics.[11] Although an Article V constitutional convention[12] has never been called, the states have come close to amassing applications from two-thirds of the states, and on those occasions, the mere threat of being forced to call a convention appears to have prompted Congress to act.
- In 1912, for example, the states were one application shy of forcing Congress to call a convention to consider an amendment requiring the direct election of Senators. In response, Congress passed the Seventeenth Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification.[13]
- Similarly, the states came within two applications of requiring Congress to call a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment when Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,[14] significant parts of which were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.[15]
Article V and the Constitutional ConventionAddressing Article V, James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43:
It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.[18]In other words, Article V was designed to strike a balance by effecting a compromise between those who might wish to treat the Constitution as if it were a mere piece of legislation that could be amended easily and often and those who would wish to make it virtually impossible to amend our founding charter regardless of the circumstances and perceived need to do so. Above all, Article V ensures through the ratification process that amendments have substantial support among the people by requiring ratification of the proposed amendment by three-fourths of the states (38 at present) before it could take effect.
Article V was first introduced at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on May 29, 1787, as part of the Virginia Plan,[19] which provided that the “Articles of Union” should be amended “whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not be required thereto.”[20] This provision was referred to in the Convention’s Committee of Detail, which revised the draft to state that “[t]his Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that Purpose.”[21] It was subsequently revised when some, especially Alexander Hamilton, objected that this would give the states too much power over Congress.[22]
A compromise, first proposed by James Madison and eventually adopted with only slight modification,[23] was the dual method for proposing amendments, including a mechanism in which Congress would be required to call a convention to propose amendments once two-thirds of the states filed an application requesting it. This would reduce the ability of Congress to block amendments that two-thirds of the states desired; as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 85, “[t]he Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” He added, “[w]e may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”[24] Virginia delegate George Mason was particularly adamant on this point, believing that any procedure that required congressional approval of amendments would be improper “because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”[25]
Some Current Proposals to Convene a Constitutional ConventionNumerous participants in our nation’s public life have urged the states to apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments and have suggested pursuing particular amendments. For example, in The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, prominent conservative Mark Levin expresses enthusiastic support for an Article V convention and recommends 10 amendments aimed at reducing the power of the federal government. They include imposing term limits; repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators; and allowing state legislatures to bypass Congress and amend the Constitution by a two-thirds majority.
Levin, who candidly admits that he was once skeptical of the wisdom of calling for an Article V convention, explains why he now believes the states should force Congress to call such a convention:
The state convention process bypasses the intractable architects of this calamity, who have obstructed and sabotaged all other routes to constitutional adherence. It is a bottom-up, grassroots initiative that empowers the citizenry, organizing in neighborhoods and communities, and working through the state legislatures, to stem federal domination, reverse course, and escape ruin.[26]It is important to emphasize, of course, that there are wish lists of constitutional amendments from people across the political spectrum. In his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,[27] retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens proposes six constitutional amendments, including one that would overrule the Supreme Court’s decision inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller,[28] which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; a second that would overrule the Court’s decision in Printz v. United States[29] and enable the federal government to order state officials to carry out federal duties; a third that would overturn the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[30] and allow Congress and the states to circumscribe the First Amendment by setting strict limits on the amount of money that candidates or their supporters can spend on pure political speech during election campaigns; and a fourth that would abolish capital punishment.
One organization—Wolf PAC—seeks to overturn Citizens United and has called for “a limited amendments convention for the purpose of proposing a Free and Fair Elections Amendment to the United States Constitution.”[31] According to its website, four state legislatures (California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Vermont) have already applied for this kind of convention.[32]
Eleven states comprising 165 electoral votes, seeking in effect to negate the Electoral College provided for in the Constitution,[33] have agreed in principle to abide by the National Popular Vote plan, under which states would agree to pledge their electoral votes to the ticket that wins the popular vote around the country. The plan would be “activated” once the number of states totaling 270 electoral votes signed on to the plan.[34]
Among conservatives and libertarians, the most prominent proposals include those of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, the Convention of the States Project, and the Compact for America.[35]
The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force is a grassroots-driven organization that is seeking to have states apply to Congress to call a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. The task force has drafted model state applications and legislation designed to limit the delegates’ authority to consideration of an amendment to balance the federal budget. According to the group’s website, 27 of the required number of 34 states have submitted balanced budget amendment applications.[36]
In 2014, a group called Citizens for Self-Governance began its “Convention of the States” project,[37] which urges states to apply to Congress to call a convention to draft amendments that will limit federal power and address what they identify as “four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government”: the spending and debt crisis, the regulatory crisis, congressional attacks on state sovereignty, and the federal takeover of the decision-making process.[38] Although the group has not proposed specific language for a constitutional amendment, its members support amendments that would balance the budget, redefine the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, prohibit the use of international treaties and international law to govern domestic law, impose term limits on Members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, place an upper limit on federal taxation, and require the sunsetting of all existing federal taxes and a supermajority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes.
The group has produced a model resolution for state legislators to use when applying for a convention. Thus far, this resolution, which was recently endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, has been passed by five states (Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, and Alabama) and is being considered by several others.[39]
Compact for America[40] urges states to enter into a binding interstate “compact” in which they would legally obligate themselves to support the calling of a convention for the sole purpose of having delegates cast a straight up-or-down vote on a pre-drafted balanced budget amendment.
[41] This amendment seeks to limit federal spending by:
- Requiring that total federal outlays not exceed total receipts unless excess outlays are financed through authorized borrowing under the established debt limit;
- Establishing the debt limit at 105 percent of the outstanding debt at the time of the amendment’s ratification;
- Prohibiting any increase in the federal debt limit unless a majority of the states approve it;
- Requiring the President to designate specific expenditures for impoundment when outstanding debt exceeds 98 percent of the debt limit; and
- Requiring two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress to raise or implement new taxes (although no such approval is necessary if a new end user sales tax is implemented that would replace “every existing income tax levied by the government of the United States” or if an existing exemption, deduction, or credit is reduced or eliminated).[42]
Thus far, four states (Georgia, Alaska, Mississippi, and North Dakota) have joined the compact. By its own terms, the compact expires seven years “after the first State passes legislation enacting, adopting and agreeing to be bound by this Compact,” which, according to the organization’s website, will be April 12, 2021.
Can an Article V Convention Be Limited?Many open questions remain about the process of amending the Constitution by means of an Article V convention. Such questions include:
- Must the applications from the state legislatures match each other verbatim (a task that would have been difficult to accomplish at the time of the framing of the Constitution when the state of technology made communications among the states slow and ponderous)?[43] If not, how much commonality among applications is necessary, and how is the existence of sufficient commonality determined?
- After receiving the requisite number of applications from state legislatures, can Congress call “a Convention for proposing Amendments” that is limited to consideration of a particular pre-drafted amendment,[44] issue, or subject area, or would such a convention have to be open to consideration of other issues and amendments that some of the delegates might wish to propose once they have convened, thereby creating the risk of a “runaway convention”?
- Can Congress assess the validity of a state legislature’s application by, for instance, refusing to recognize an application to consider a particular amendment if Congress believes that a limited convention is not allowed?
- Are state legislature applications perpetually open once made, or can a state legislature limit the period of time for which the application remains effective?
- Can a state legislature rescind an application that it previously made?[45]
- Is Congress compelled to call an Article V convention if it concludes that applications for a limited convention are improper?
- Can Congress determine the number and method for selecting delegates to such a convention or the rules of procedure and voting rules at the convention?[46]
- Can states place enforceable limits on the authority of their delegates to the convention?[47]
- Can Congress place limits on where, when, how, and how long such a convention should be held, or would such matters be left to the delegates or the states themselves?[48]
- If the delegates at a convention passed an amendment that Congress deemed beyond the scope of the convention, could Congress refuse to forward the non-conforming amendment to the states for ratification?
- Would the answers to any of these questions be subject to review and enforcement by federal or state courts? If so, could the courts consider such matters in lawsuits filed as events unfold, or must consideration of any such lawsuits await the conclusion of an Article V convention or the final outcome of any subsequent ratification process?
Some prominent scholars contend that a “Convention for proposing Amendments” is just that—a convention to propose amendments, any amendments, for the convention delegates to consider—and that it cannot be limited to a particular, pre-drafted amendment or to a limited subject matter. Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, for instance, argues that this understanding is in keeping with the commonly understood meaning of “convention” at the time the Constitution was ratified: a deliberative political body, which, by implication, cannot be constrained in its deliberations. Moreover, Paulsen contends, it would be quite odd to argue that Congress could decline to send to the states for ratification any amendment it deemed beyond the scope of the convention since the whole point of creating the constitutional convention mechanism was to reduce the role of Congress in the state-initiated amendment process.[50]
Although some scholars disagree with this characterization,[51] it is worth remembering that the delegates to the Philadelphia convention who drafted Article V had responded to a call by the Confederation Congress for a convention to consider whatever amendments to the Articles of Confederation they might deem necessary,[52] which they exceeded, only to see their actions subsequently approved by the nation through the ratification process.
Other scholars contend that a limited convention would be constitutional and that if the states applied for a convention limited to a particular subject or pre-drafted amendment, Congress would be required to call such a convention, and the convention would be obliged to consider only that particular subject matter or amendment.[53]
Some scholars argue that “a Convention for proposing Amendments” can be fairly interpreted to encompass either an unlimited convention or a limited one and that if Congress is obligated to call a convention upon receipt of the requisite number of applications, then it is perfectly reasonable that Congress should be obligated to call a convention that conforms to any limitations contained in all of those applications. Others have noted that the initial draft of Article V by the Committee of Detail provided that “[t]his Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment shall become necessary; and on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States of the Union, the Legislature of the United States shall call a Convention for that purpose”[54] and that the inclusion of the phrase “for that purpose” indicates that the drafter intended for states to have the ability to call for a limited convention to address particular subjects rather than to review the Constitution in its entirety.[55]
Still others have argued that the historical evidence from the time of the Framers was that conventions served a variety of purposes—some limited and some plenary—and did not have a fixed purpose and that the structure of Article V implies an equivalence between the two triggering mechanisms: Congress’s power to propose amendments is limited to those amendments that two-thirds of both houses of Congress deem necessary, and the same is true for the states’ power, which is limited to those amendments that two-thirds of the states deem necessary.[56]
ConclusionMany questions surrounding Article V of the Constitution merit thorough and careful consideration. Although James Madison did not object at the Philadelphia Convention to including an amendments convention in Article V, he warned “that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.”[57] Michael Stern, former Senior Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and a strong proponent of the Article V convention process, has stated that “[i]t must be acknowledged…that the purely legal issue of whether an Article V Convention may be limited cannot be definitely resolved. Constitutional scholars have long debated the question, and it is widely recognized to be a quintessentially open one.”[58]
These questions loom large over the current calls of some advocates and state legislatures for such a convention and might well lead to attempts to frustrate the will of states that call for a limited convention by those who oppose the concept of a limited convention, want to use the convention to consider other subjects, or do not like the results of such a convention. Such challenges could take various forms including lawsuits that could take years and lead to unpredictable results. This is not an argument against proceeding with a constitutional convention—after all, the Bill of Rights emerged at a time when no procedures or customs existed for implementing Article V—so much as it is an observation that those who are pursuing a call for a convention to consider a particular amendment or subject area they favor must recognize the risk that a convention might consider and yield amendments that they dislike on other subjects.
An Article V convention might propose an amendment to restore or expand the liberties of the American people, but it also could propose an amendment that diminishes the liberties of the American people, or of some of the people. While it is no doubt true that the ratification process itself, requiring support from three-fourths of the states (38 at present), decreases the likelihood of some radical proposal ultimately becoming part of our Constitution, it is worth recalling that 27 of the 33 proposed amendments that have been sent to the states for ratification achieved the requisite number, and that was before the age of the Internet and social media–driven campaigns that can dramatically increase public pressure on those who are considering such an amendment and reduce the time devoted to thoughtful reflection.
Some argue that the risks of an Article V convention in the face of legal uncertainty are simply too great. Professor Gerald Gunther, a prominent constitutional law scholar, for instance, has warned that the road “promises controversy and confusion and confrontation at every turn.”[59]Michael Stern, on the other hand, argues that:
It can scarcely be denied that the limited powers granted to the Congress in Article I of the Constitution have not proved to be a meaningful check on the expansion of federal power. The Article V Convention, if available as intended to check the “encroachments of the national authority,” would mitigate this risk.[60]Some day we may get the answers to some of the difficult and open questions about the state-initiated Article V process. If proponents of calling an Article V Convention succeed, that day may be coming soon. Regardless of the particular merits of the proposals[61] and whether these efforts ultimately result in a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, getting people engaged in a robust discussion of important issues regarding self-governance and the proper role of the federal and state governments in the lives of the American people is a constructive and positive development.
The possibility of an Article V convention of the states has a great deal of appeal to many. With such a convention or without one, however, it remains vitally important that we continue to maintain an overriding focus on holding Congress and the President and, by extension, federal agencies accountable for the decisions they make today.
—John G. Malcolm is Director of and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
To Vote, Or, Not To Vote, That 'IS' The Question!
To mis-quote a line from Shakespeare, and then to twist it to my point about this coming election;
Whether To Vote or Not to Vote, that is the question! Tis it nobler in the mind to make a Moot Point, have a Pyrrhic Victory, and/or go down in flames, losing everything we hold dear, or, Tis it nobler to bite the bullet and fight against the coming darkness, and by opposing it, to end it? Wouldst thou do what must be done to start restoring the Constitution and the Republic? This question we all have to decide for ourselves!
OK, so I'm not Shakespeare. The point is, either we vote or we lose everything!
The most crucial issues in this election, and the most influential in blocking the Elitist Controlled Progressive/Socialists in the Democratic Progressive Caucus, will not lie with the President alone. Remember this, the Progressive Democratic Caucus members hold dual positions in the Democratic Socialist Party and the Democratic Party. They are deliberately masquerading as simply Democrats, and hiding the fact they are card carrying members of the Democratic Socialist Party too. There are some very valid reasons to block either Hillary or Bernie, and tantamount to all of them, is the FACT that the next President will probably be able to nominate THREE Supreme Court Justices and maybe more if the winner serves two terms in the Presidency.
We need to put in place some sort of insurance policy against the potential for damage/disaster to our Republic for these reasons;
The current U.S. Senate has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent Socialist, Bernie Sanders). There are 34 seats up for grabs in 2016, 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control. A total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016, so we don't have much time to unite to block the Progressives from gaining another disastrous "Super Majority" that will in all probability finally destroy the Constitution and with it the Republic..
Twenty-six (26) Republicans are retiring from their seats in 2016, and that means we will have to try and replace them with Conservative Leaning Replacements who are Pro-Constitution or as close to that as we can find in the fields of candidates who are running. Hopefully Maintaining or Increasing Republican/Conservative/Constitutionalist Representation in Congress. We can't do that if qualified voters stay home like they did in 2012. If they do, we face the same upset we had then with Obama, and no clear potential for a majority in the House and Senate. Remember the damage to the Republic the Democrats did, and how they totally ignored the majority of American citizens wishes when they forced through their agendas during the 111th Congress having had a "Super Majority" and how damnably arrogant they were to anyone who questioned their agendas then? Do we want to risk that happening again?
This means we must field a strong support at the polls for the most Constitutionally minded and Conservative oriented candidates who are running. We only need to do this within our own local precincts and not for the entire Country.
First, We must fully Vett the candidates we can personally vote for by using their past voting records, Bills they supported, Bills they originated, and Bills they were against by checking their records at:
( https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes , the US Senate page; http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/how_to_votes.htm and finally, the Congressional Index page; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CRI)
Second, We must promote them and go vote for them.
Third, We must help get other like minded voters to the polls to vote or help those needing it, absentee ballots.
Fourth, We must keep in contact with our County Clerks and insure they get the ballots to our Military personnel in a timely manner so their votes can be counted.
It is my considered opinion that while the President is the most highly visible office, it's the Congress that determines which way the Country will move. Consider this; The President can not spend one cent unless Congress has appropriated the funds for him to spend. The President can not raise or lower taxes, only Congress can do that. While the President can issue executive orders, they only affect Federal institutions and they can be readily overruled and removed by Congress. The President can not originate laws, only Congress can do that. The President can object to a law and veto it, but Congress can override that veto. The President only sets the tone, it's Congress that decides what to do with it!
The conclusion to this is simple, we must find out who the most Constitutional and Conservative candidates running for Congress are. Those may not be the perfect choice, and in many instances they will only be marginally better than the ones in office. However would it not be better for the Republic if we removed the worst of the worst from office even if, at this time, we can only replace them with someone even marginally better? That's a beginning step in the right direction. This also holds true for the State Legislatures and even Local Offices.
Ed.Note: This in my opinion holds true regardless who becomes our next President!
Whether To Vote or Not to Vote, that is the question! Tis it nobler in the mind to make a Moot Point, have a Pyrrhic Victory, and/or go down in flames, losing everything we hold dear, or, Tis it nobler to bite the bullet and fight against the coming darkness, and by opposing it, to end it? Wouldst thou do what must be done to start restoring the Constitution and the Republic? This question we all have to decide for ourselves!
OK, so I'm not Shakespeare. The point is, either we vote or we lose everything!
The most crucial issues in this election, and the most influential in blocking the Elitist Controlled Progressive/Socialists in the Democratic Progressive Caucus, will not lie with the President alone. Remember this, the Progressive Democratic Caucus members hold dual positions in the Democratic Socialist Party and the Democratic Party. They are deliberately masquerading as simply Democrats, and hiding the fact they are card carrying members of the Democratic Socialist Party too. There are some very valid reasons to block either Hillary or Bernie, and tantamount to all of them, is the FACT that the next President will probably be able to nominate THREE Supreme Court Justices and maybe more if the winner serves two terms in the Presidency.
We need to put in place some sort of insurance policy against the potential for damage/disaster to our Republic for these reasons;
The current U.S. Senate has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent Socialist, Bernie Sanders). There are 34 seats up for grabs in 2016, 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control. A total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016, so we don't have much time to unite to block the Progressives from gaining another disastrous "Super Majority" that will in all probability finally destroy the Constitution and with it the Republic..
Twenty-six (26) Republicans are retiring from their seats in 2016, and that means we will have to try and replace them with Conservative Leaning Replacements who are Pro-Constitution or as close to that as we can find in the fields of candidates who are running. Hopefully Maintaining or Increasing Republican/Conservative/Constitutionalist Representation in Congress. We can't do that if qualified voters stay home like they did in 2012. If they do, we face the same upset we had then with Obama, and no clear potential for a majority in the House and Senate. Remember the damage to the Republic the Democrats did, and how they totally ignored the majority of American citizens wishes when they forced through their agendas during the 111th Congress having had a "Super Majority" and how damnably arrogant they were to anyone who questioned their agendas then? Do we want to risk that happening again?
This means we must field a strong support at the polls for the most Constitutionally minded and Conservative oriented candidates who are running. We only need to do this within our own local precincts and not for the entire Country.
First, We must fully Vett the candidates we can personally vote for by using their past voting records, Bills they supported, Bills they originated, and Bills they were against by checking their records at:
( https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes , the US Senate page; http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/how_to_votes.htm and finally, the Congressional Index page; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CRI)
Second, We must promote them and go vote for them.
Third, We must help get other like minded voters to the polls to vote or help those needing it, absentee ballots.
Fourth, We must keep in contact with our County Clerks and insure they get the ballots to our Military personnel in a timely manner so their votes can be counted.
It is my considered opinion that while the President is the most highly visible office, it's the Congress that determines which way the Country will move. Consider this; The President can not spend one cent unless Congress has appropriated the funds for him to spend. The President can not raise or lower taxes, only Congress can do that. While the President can issue executive orders, they only affect Federal institutions and they can be readily overruled and removed by Congress. The President can not originate laws, only Congress can do that. The President can object to a law and veto it, but Congress can override that veto. The President only sets the tone, it's Congress that decides what to do with it!
The conclusion to this is simple, we must find out who the most Constitutional and Conservative candidates running for Congress are. Those may not be the perfect choice, and in many instances they will only be marginally better than the ones in office. However would it not be better for the Republic if we removed the worst of the worst from office even if, at this time, we can only replace them with someone even marginally better? That's a beginning step in the right direction. This also holds true for the State Legislatures and even Local Offices.
Ed.Note: This in my opinion holds true regardless who becomes our next President!
We Have The Progressive Socialist Liberals Running Scared Of This Idea That's Catching On!
uffington Post Article 04/25/2016 02:41 pm ETThe War Against the 17th AmendmentMax J. SkidmoreLecturer, author, editor, professor.
Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-j-skidmore/the-war-against-the-seven_b_9768772.html?ref=yfp
Let's take this HIT PIECE apart, Piece by Propagandized Piece!
A widespread sentiment among more extreme conservatives — including a surprising number of prominent Republican candidates, former candidates, office holders, and former office holders — is that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. That Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way of selecting United States senators. It empowered a state’s voters and took the power of selection away from legislatures.
In doing this the Congress that proposed that toxic amendment deliberately took the EQUAL REPRESENTATION away from the States. Before that amendment was pushed off on an unsuspecting and trusting public, the State Legislatures had complete control of their Senators and could demand they do as the State Legislators wanted them to do, and represent the States interests instead of their respective Political Parties as is now the case!
Those advocating repeal no doubt are a minority among Republicans, but they are significant, and are more numerous than one might imagine. They include, among others, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Ted Cruz of Texas (who said that before the 17th Amendment, politicians were less likely to break into your home and steal your television—literally true, of course, because televisions before 1914 were somewhat scarce). Many others are on the list, such as former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rick Perry of Texas; judicial ideologues including U. S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, and the late conservative icon Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
What the writer has failed to say is the very part of the original Constitution contained what is known as either "The Great Compromise" or alternately as the " Connecticut Compromise". That compromise was intended to give each State EQUAL REPRESENTATION in Congress regardless of it's size and population.
Meetings of political scientists often feature panels on “federalism.” These are likely to consist largely (almost entirely, in fact) of bright young ideologues who — fervently, and oh so earnestly — take it for granted that the 17th Amendment dealt such a deathblow that federalism no longer exists.
Make up your own minds on this mis-statement by reading the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist Papers on the
' www.ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com ' site.
A number of hardcore ideological scholars and journalists back the effort as well. One of those journalists (not scholars) is the one who appears to be the Washington Post‘s “Columnist in Charge of Silly Ideas,” George Will.
Those ideas are only silly because they poke holes in the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal philosophy and show it up for what it truly is; A movement to create an oligarchy in America to be rules by the Power Elites.
Will has written that with legislative choice, America thrived, and the Senate had the “Great Triumvirate,” Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. He says that under direct election, by contrast, voters elected the ineffable Joseph R. McCarthy.
The only things that thrived under the 17th was the Progressive Liberal growing of the Federal government's power and scope to rule roughshod over the People and the States as it took away one more of the original checks and balances on the Federal Government.
Ignoring whether the arch racist, advocate of slavery as a “positive good,” and secessionist Calhoun was better than the red-baiting McCarthy, a closer look demonstrates that the old system also chose Senator Simon Cameron, who is famed for the supposed comment that “an honest politician is the one who when bought, stays bought,” while the current system brought to the Senate such outstanding figures as William Fulbright, Lyndon Johnson, Edward Kennedy, and (if you will) Richard Russell.
Again, the author keeps harping on the Alinsky buzz words like Racism, a term that by the way was coined to discredit and ridicule those people who opposed Socialism/Communism. Beginning to see the connection?
The able leader Henry Cabot Lodge was chosen under both systems, as was the foul-mouthed racist demagogue, Pitchfork Ben Tillman. Both systems have sent terrible people to the Senate, and excellent ones.
The conservative Ralph Rossum, a capable scholar, studied the issue in his impressive 2001 work, Federalism: the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. He argues that federalism has declined, but is less successful in demonstrating that the 17th Amendment was the cause.
A quick look at the argument of the “repealers” that the 17th Amendment took from the states the power to choose senators reveals that it did no such thing. A state is more than its legislature. Voters, choosing senators by state, express the state’s will at least as fully as legislatures did.
Another Alinsky tactic of ridiculing those opposed ( "Repealers" )to the Progressive Socialist viewpoint and expressing it in terms that suggest those people are moral misfits and social pariahs. It also ignores the real fact that Senators now are mostly more loyal to their respective Political Party's Ideology and agendas, than they are to the People and their States wishes. that is what true Representation is supposed to be.
Every state still has two senators, maintaining equality of states in the Senate. Legislatures never had the ability to control the votes of U.S. senators, and always failed in the rare instances in which they attempted it. Nor did they have the power to instruct senators or to recall senators who violated their “orders.” As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected state control in favor of “per capita” voting by senators, and it has never been extraordinary for a state’s two senators to cast different votes.
I venture to ask the author of this hit piece where he got his misinformation, or is it in reality disinformation to twist the minds of his readers? From wikpedia;[OriginallyState legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government. The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests]
The founders knew that majorities in legislatures would shift, that they might differ between houses, and that a state’s senators would often vote differently from one another. There is no less incentive now for a senator to vote “in the interests of the state” than there ever was. Thus, the argument from federalism is bogus.
Hogwash. The Political Parties and their Ideology and agendas now control what most of the Establishment Progressive Senators say and do. All you have to do is to look closely at the Fiasco of the last 50 years to see that.
It should also be noted, that it was state legislatures that had chosen every senator who voted to propose the 17th Amendment. It was also state legislatures themselves who voted to ratify it. In fact legislatures in 41 of the 48 states decided to ratify the Amendment, far more than the required three-fourths of the total.
Very much information can be found to refute that statement at; http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/why-did-state-legislators-give-away-their-power-to-pick-senators-on-the-origins-of-the-17th-amendment/ and at; http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/ and here; https://mises.org/library/repeal-17th just to name three. There are many more out there that totally refutes the author's statements.
What, then, is the real motivation behind the demand for repeal, when its likelihood of passage is so remote? There certainly is no outcry from the people of the United States demanding a measure that would strip them of their votes for their senators. In all probability, the fundamental motivation that masks itself as an effort to restore a vanished federal system is actually a covert grab for power.
Typical spin combined with deliberate misdirection that ignores the single most important fact concerning this argument; The House Is The Peoples Representative. The Senate was intended to strictly and solely represent the legitimate interests of the States. The States interests were supposed to be controlled by the citizens of those States controlling their Elected Representatives in their State Legislatures thus keeping the chain of command firmly in the Peoples Hands like was intended by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.
Consider two things: first, conservatives tend to believe, probably correctly, that large voter turnouts are detrimental to their interests; second, it is possible to gerrymander a state to create districts that defeat majorities, but it is impossible to gerrymander a whole state. Thus, if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. Long-term demographic trends are opposed to them and their ideology, so they desperately try anything they can think of to retain minority power.
This statement ( if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. ) flies in the face of what is written within the Constitution prior to the 17th amendment. In fact my considered opinion on this is just the opposite, that the progressives have a greater chance of controlling the election of Senators under the 17th amendment's auspices.
They increase obstacles to voting across the board. Whenever possible, they even deny the vote to as many people as possible. They are notorious in their attempts to restrict citizenship to keep the electorate as small as they can. They treat elites ever more favorably, and now, however much it may simply be grasping at straws, they seek to return selection of senators to state legislatures. Their motivation is therefore less related to federalism, than to power.
This entire statement is a direct, blatant, and express move to discredit any attempts to stop Voter Fraud, and thwart any attempt to keep elections as clean as possible. Historically, I believe that Fraudulent totals have always benefited the Progressive Liberal factions over the conservatives. I ask the author why the Progressive Democratic Socialists ( popularly known as Democrats ) who are co-members of the Democratic Socialist Party and concurrently are members that make up the entirety of the Democratic Caucus, have had a ruling from a judge who by the way is retires but comes back to the bench one day every year to reinstate his ruling, preventing the GOP from even investigating any suspected voter fraud or intimidation at the polls?
These are my considered opinions on the subject of the 17th amendment. When will American Citizens wake up to the fact they are being played by the Progressive Elites who seemingly want to destroy the American exceptionalism along with the republic to institute a Socialist Oriented Society that will only serve the Elites as an Oligarchy?
The Tradesman
Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-j-skidmore/the-war-against-the-seven_b_9768772.html?ref=yfp
Let's take this HIT PIECE apart, Piece by Propagandized Piece!
A widespread sentiment among more extreme conservatives — including a surprising number of prominent Republican candidates, former candidates, office holders, and former office holders — is that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. That Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way of selecting United States senators. It empowered a state’s voters and took the power of selection away from legislatures.
In doing this the Congress that proposed that toxic amendment deliberately took the EQUAL REPRESENTATION away from the States. Before that amendment was pushed off on an unsuspecting and trusting public, the State Legislatures had complete control of their Senators and could demand they do as the State Legislators wanted them to do, and represent the States interests instead of their respective Political Parties as is now the case!
Those advocating repeal no doubt are a minority among Republicans, but they are significant, and are more numerous than one might imagine. They include, among others, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Ted Cruz of Texas (who said that before the 17th Amendment, politicians were less likely to break into your home and steal your television—literally true, of course, because televisions before 1914 were somewhat scarce). Many others are on the list, such as former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Rick Perry of Texas; judicial ideologues including U. S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, and the late conservative icon Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
What the writer has failed to say is the very part of the original Constitution contained what is known as either "The Great Compromise" or alternately as the " Connecticut Compromise". That compromise was intended to give each State EQUAL REPRESENTATION in Congress regardless of it's size and population.
Meetings of political scientists often feature panels on “federalism.” These are likely to consist largely (almost entirely, in fact) of bright young ideologues who — fervently, and oh so earnestly — take it for granted that the 17th Amendment dealt such a deathblow that federalism no longer exists.
Make up your own minds on this mis-statement by reading the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist Papers on the
' www.ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com ' site.
A number of hardcore ideological scholars and journalists back the effort as well. One of those journalists (not scholars) is the one who appears to be the Washington Post‘s “Columnist in Charge of Silly Ideas,” George Will.
Those ideas are only silly because they poke holes in the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal philosophy and show it up for what it truly is; A movement to create an oligarchy in America to be rules by the Power Elites.
Will has written that with legislative choice, America thrived, and the Senate had the “Great Triumvirate,” Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. He says that under direct election, by contrast, voters elected the ineffable Joseph R. McCarthy.
The only things that thrived under the 17th was the Progressive Liberal growing of the Federal government's power and scope to rule roughshod over the People and the States as it took away one more of the original checks and balances on the Federal Government.
Ignoring whether the arch racist, advocate of slavery as a “positive good,” and secessionist Calhoun was better than the red-baiting McCarthy, a closer look demonstrates that the old system also chose Senator Simon Cameron, who is famed for the supposed comment that “an honest politician is the one who when bought, stays bought,” while the current system brought to the Senate such outstanding figures as William Fulbright, Lyndon Johnson, Edward Kennedy, and (if you will) Richard Russell.
Again, the author keeps harping on the Alinsky buzz words like Racism, a term that by the way was coined to discredit and ridicule those people who opposed Socialism/Communism. Beginning to see the connection?
The able leader Henry Cabot Lodge was chosen under both systems, as was the foul-mouthed racist demagogue, Pitchfork Ben Tillman. Both systems have sent terrible people to the Senate, and excellent ones.
The conservative Ralph Rossum, a capable scholar, studied the issue in his impressive 2001 work, Federalism: the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. He argues that federalism has declined, but is less successful in demonstrating that the 17th Amendment was the cause.
A quick look at the argument of the “repealers” that the 17th Amendment took from the states the power to choose senators reveals that it did no such thing. A state is more than its legislature. Voters, choosing senators by state, express the state’s will at least as fully as legislatures did.
Another Alinsky tactic of ridiculing those opposed ( "Repealers" )to the Progressive Socialist viewpoint and expressing it in terms that suggest those people are moral misfits and social pariahs. It also ignores the real fact that Senators now are mostly more loyal to their respective Political Party's Ideology and agendas, than they are to the People and their States wishes. that is what true Representation is supposed to be.
Every state still has two senators, maintaining equality of states in the Senate. Legislatures never had the ability to control the votes of U.S. senators, and always failed in the rare instances in which they attempted it. Nor did they have the power to instruct senators or to recall senators who violated their “orders.” As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected state control in favor of “per capita” voting by senators, and it has never been extraordinary for a state’s two senators to cast different votes.
I venture to ask the author of this hit piece where he got his misinformation, or is it in reality disinformation to twist the minds of his readers? From wikpedia;[OriginallyState legislatures retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal government. The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to "special interests]
The founders knew that majorities in legislatures would shift, that they might differ between houses, and that a state’s senators would often vote differently from one another. There is no less incentive now for a senator to vote “in the interests of the state” than there ever was. Thus, the argument from federalism is bogus.
Hogwash. The Political Parties and their Ideology and agendas now control what most of the Establishment Progressive Senators say and do. All you have to do is to look closely at the Fiasco of the last 50 years to see that.
It should also be noted, that it was state legislatures that had chosen every senator who voted to propose the 17th Amendment. It was also state legislatures themselves who voted to ratify it. In fact legislatures in 41 of the 48 states decided to ratify the Amendment, far more than the required three-fourths of the total.
Very much information can be found to refute that statement at; http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/why-did-state-legislators-give-away-their-power-to-pick-senators-on-the-origins-of-the-17th-amendment/ and at; http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/ and here; https://mises.org/library/repeal-17th just to name three. There are many more out there that totally refutes the author's statements.
What, then, is the real motivation behind the demand for repeal, when its likelihood of passage is so remote? There certainly is no outcry from the people of the United States demanding a measure that would strip them of their votes for their senators. In all probability, the fundamental motivation that masks itself as an effort to restore a vanished federal system is actually a covert grab for power.
Typical spin combined with deliberate misdirection that ignores the single most important fact concerning this argument; The House Is The Peoples Representative. The Senate was intended to strictly and solely represent the legitimate interests of the States. The States interests were supposed to be controlled by the citizens of those States controlling their Elected Representatives in their State Legislatures thus keeping the chain of command firmly in the Peoples Hands like was intended by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.
Consider two things: first, conservatives tend to believe, probably correctly, that large voter turnouts are detrimental to their interests; second, it is possible to gerrymander a state to create districts that defeat majorities, but it is impossible to gerrymander a whole state. Thus, if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. Long-term demographic trends are opposed to them and their ideology, so they desperately try anything they can think of to retain minority power.
This statement ( if there were no 17th Amendment, conservatives believe that they might be able to control the selection of U.S. senators even against majority preference. ) flies in the face of what is written within the Constitution prior to the 17th amendment. In fact my considered opinion on this is just the opposite, that the progressives have a greater chance of controlling the election of Senators under the 17th amendment's auspices.
They increase obstacles to voting across the board. Whenever possible, they even deny the vote to as many people as possible. They are notorious in their attempts to restrict citizenship to keep the electorate as small as they can. They treat elites ever more favorably, and now, however much it may simply be grasping at straws, they seek to return selection of senators to state legislatures. Their motivation is therefore less related to federalism, than to power.
This entire statement is a direct, blatant, and express move to discredit any attempts to stop Voter Fraud, and thwart any attempt to keep elections as clean as possible. Historically, I believe that Fraudulent totals have always benefited the Progressive Liberal factions over the conservatives. I ask the author why the Progressive Democratic Socialists ( popularly known as Democrats ) who are co-members of the Democratic Socialist Party and concurrently are members that make up the entirety of the Democratic Caucus, have had a ruling from a judge who by the way is retires but comes back to the bench one day every year to reinstate his ruling, preventing the GOP from even investigating any suspected voter fraud or intimidation at the polls?
These are my considered opinions on the subject of the 17th amendment. When will American Citizens wake up to the fact they are being played by the Progressive Elites who seemingly want to destroy the American exceptionalism along with the republic to institute a Socialist Oriented Society that will only serve the Elites as an Oligarchy?
The Tradesman
Welfare Or Progressive Plan To Push US Into receivership?
SIT DOWN TO READ THIS ! ! ! !
This article was sent to me via E-Mail, Author Unknown.
Can't you hear students telling their teachers they want to be welfare recipients when they grow up?
THE WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE 'WELFARE' SYSTEM
The Cato Institute released an updated 2014 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia.
Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states.
According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home and watch TV than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.
Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.
Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:
1. Hawaii : $60,590
2. District of Columbia :$50,820
3. Massachusetts : $50,540
4. Connecticut : $44,370
5. New York : $43,700
6. New Jersey : $43,450
7. Rhode Island : $43,330
8. Vermont : $42,350
9. New Hampshire : $39,750
10. Maryland : $38,160
11. California : $37,160
12. Oregon : $34,300
13. Wyoming : $32,620
14. Nevada : $29,820
15. Minnesota : $29,350
16. Delaware : $29,220
17. Washington : $28,840
18. North Dakota : $28,830
19. Pennsylvania : $28,670
20. New Mexico : $27,900
21. Montana : $26,930
22. South Dakota : $26,610
23. Kansas: $26,490
24. Michigan : $26,430
25. Alaska : $26,400
26. Ohio : $26,200
27. North Carolina : $25,760
28. West Virginia : $24,900
29. Alabama : $23,310
30. Indiana : $22,900
31. Missouri : $22,800
32. Oklahoma : $22,480
33. Louisiana : $22,250
34. South Carolina : $21,910
As a point of reference the average Middle Class annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the Great Recession.
Hawaii , DC , and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there.
Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job.
Time for a drastic change... America is virtually bankrupt.
Note that California is $18.50 an hour.
Are we Nuts or what? How do we un-do this type of stupidity … This is crazy!
Salary of retired United States Presidents $180,000 FOR LIFE !!
Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE !!
This is beyond stupid!!!!!!!
Salary of Speaker of the House ...$223,500 FOR LIFE!
This is really stupid.
Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,500 FOR LIFE!
Ditto last line.
Average Salary of a teacher ... $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN .. $38,000
Think about this !!!!!
Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE.
She has retired as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year. PLUS she will receive an additional $193,400 a year as Minority Leader, the fact that she has become rich while in office notwithstanding.
That's $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical which is not available to us .... the taxpayers
She is just one of the hundreds of Senators and Congress that float in and out every year!
I think we found where the cuts should be made!
If you agree ...... pass it on.
Wake UP America !
Unless you really don't care that your country is bankrupt at the likes of these people!
Tell Me Again Why It's So Wrong Or So Dangerous To Have An Article V Amendment Proposal Convention To Repeal The 14th,16th&17th Amendments So We Can Rein In
These Types Of Excesses Congress Imposes On Us At Our Expense!!!
This article was sent to me via E-Mail, Author Unknown.
Can't you hear students telling their teachers they want to be welfare recipients when they grow up?
THE WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE 'WELFARE' SYSTEM
The Cato Institute released an updated 2014 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia.
Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states.
According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home and watch TV than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.
Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.
Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:
1. Hawaii : $60,590
2. District of Columbia :$50,820
3. Massachusetts : $50,540
4. Connecticut : $44,370
5. New York : $43,700
6. New Jersey : $43,450
7. Rhode Island : $43,330
8. Vermont : $42,350
9. New Hampshire : $39,750
10. Maryland : $38,160
11. California : $37,160
12. Oregon : $34,300
13. Wyoming : $32,620
14. Nevada : $29,820
15. Minnesota : $29,350
16. Delaware : $29,220
17. Washington : $28,840
18. North Dakota : $28,830
19. Pennsylvania : $28,670
20. New Mexico : $27,900
21. Montana : $26,930
22. South Dakota : $26,610
23. Kansas: $26,490
24. Michigan : $26,430
25. Alaska : $26,400
26. Ohio : $26,200
27. North Carolina : $25,760
28. West Virginia : $24,900
29. Alabama : $23,310
30. Indiana : $22,900
31. Missouri : $22,800
32. Oklahoma : $22,480
33. Louisiana : $22,250
34. South Carolina : $21,910
As a point of reference the average Middle Class annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the Great Recession.
Hawaii , DC , and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there.
Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job.
Time for a drastic change... America is virtually bankrupt.
Note that California is $18.50 an hour.
Are we Nuts or what? How do we un-do this type of stupidity … This is crazy!
Salary of retired United States Presidents $180,000 FOR LIFE !!
Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE !!
This is beyond stupid!!!!!!!
Salary of Speaker of the House ...$223,500 FOR LIFE!
This is really stupid.
Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,500 FOR LIFE!
Ditto last line.
Average Salary of a teacher ... $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN .. $38,000
Think about this !!!!!
Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE.
She has retired as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year. PLUS she will receive an additional $193,400 a year as Minority Leader, the fact that she has become rich while in office notwithstanding.
That's $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical which is not available to us .... the taxpayers
She is just one of the hundreds of Senators and Congress that float in and out every year!
I think we found where the cuts should be made!
If you agree ...... pass it on.
Wake UP America !
Unless you really don't care that your country is bankrupt at the likes of these people!
Tell Me Again Why It's So Wrong Or So Dangerous To Have An Article V Amendment Proposal Convention To Repeal The 14th,16th&17th Amendments So We Can Rein In
These Types Of Excesses Congress Imposes On Us At Our Expense!!!
The Article V movement Is Not Well Received By The Uber Left
You know that you are doing something right when you get such a heated and inaccurate response from the Far Left Press like the one below. Consider this, The We The People comment is not on the Article V site so that's a cheap Shot to discredit the Article V movement and is completely typical of the LIES and SPIN the Left customarily uses when they are losing the argument.
By Paul1134
Monday Apr 18, 2016 · 7:52 AM EDT
By Paul1134
Monday Apr 18, 2016 · 7:52 AM EDT
Article V Movement
Make no mistake, if the hardcore Right of the GOP (AKA “The Freedom Caucus”) takes control of all three Branches, the "Article V" movement within that Party will seek to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, achieving the "victory" for States' Rights (read: "right to discriminate") that they were not able to achieve in 1865. It is frightening to read their stuff, but they cite many "mainline" GOP supporters in Congress so this isn't as farfetched as some of us would like to think. Hello, and welcome to Red State Amerika's version of Kristallnacht...
Here are some small extracts from their Site. I suggest that people who care about our country's future look into this movement very closely.
Objectives: Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
* If not successful in that Proposal, this group maintains the position that secession is a viable alternative:
“We The People, in the interests of maintaining a peaceful solution to redress our legitimate concerns, will accordingly petition our fellow Nation States within the Union for permission to remove ourselves from that Union which in our considered opinion no longer represents our interests. We are basing that decision on the sections of the Declaration of Independence which is the moral basis for our Nation’s founding. We will agree that we will only invoke the declared secession valid and enforceable with the express permission of our Sister States. We will do this by requiring the same percentages of votes by our Sister States to approve Secession as the same percentage necessary for ratification of an amendment. We will accord every State that wishes to leave the "Perpetual Union" the right to secede using that peaceful artifice.”
“We The People, according to the current Constitution, are invested by it as the highest embodiment of government and governmental power and authority, that being codified and protected by the very Constitution itself. We do not take this step lightly, nor do we take if frivolously. We take it because all of our pleas of the the vast majority of our fellow citizens, amounting to approximately 3/4 of the population of the United States, have in fact been denied their lawful desires by the very representatives who were elected expressly to represent their desired cases for incorporation into general law. We stand in the circumstances that our forebears did before the American Revolution with King George. We seem to be facing King Obama and his Parliament of Congressional Fops who kowtow to his every whim with no regard to the people whom they are legally and honor bound to represent. It is the sickness of modern Progressivism that has brought us to this brink.”
“Furthermore, if any States decide to Secede, We The People will annex all the Regular Military Assets, and Materials, and all Assets of the National Guard units residing in the respective States. We will take peaceful political control of all the Regular Military and National Guard Bases within those States. We will contract with their support industries within those respective states to supply the necessary items to protect and defend our New Nation. However if any of the Military or National Guard Personnel stationed within those Seceded States decide they do not want to be part of the New Nation, we will give them leave to remove themselves peaceably to any States that decided not to secede, but they will not be allowed to take their issued equipment with them other than their personal gear and uniforms.”
articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/...
----------------
You can't make this stuff up. These nutjobs are serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed. Note: The one thing that really sticks out on this is, Paul attributing that We The People Manifesto to the Article V Project To Restore Liberty Site. It is not part of the philosophy of the site. Evidently it came from some other site, and it was lumped in by accident..???
Mangus Colorado Addendum and Commentary 0n this piece:
Typical far left hit piece that uses cut and paste to present their desired message. For the Article V Project does not recommend secession as a remedy. It recommends using Article V to repeal 3 amendments the 14th, 16th and 17th which will restore the Sovereign Republic form intended by the Founders. The left has usurped powers not given Article I section 8 of the actual constitution.
States right were retained in the 9th and 10th amendment further guaranteed in Article V Section 4. So, it is the current tyrannical Federal central government and the courts that have ignored the Constitution. First they used the courts to limit States powers, then they used tax money to bribe the voters and the States to let the Federal Government use the 14th amendment to place all Federal laws above those of the states.
Freedom and Liberty must be fought for and defended everyday as government will seize property and wealth to use for their purposes of gaining more power over individuals.
Jefferson and the Founders knew this day could come and warned us in many quotes like this one.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
Make no mistake, if the hardcore Right of the GOP (AKA “The Freedom Caucus”) takes control of all three Branches, the "Article V" movement within that Party will seek to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, achieving the "victory" for States' Rights (read: "right to discriminate") that they were not able to achieve in 1865. It is frightening to read their stuff, but they cite many "mainline" GOP supporters in Congress so this isn't as farfetched as some of us would like to think. Hello, and welcome to Red State Amerika's version of Kristallnacht...
Here are some small extracts from their Site. I suggest that people who care about our country's future look into this movement very closely.
Objectives: Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
- The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
* If not successful in that Proposal, this group maintains the position that secession is a viable alternative:
“We The People, in the interests of maintaining a peaceful solution to redress our legitimate concerns, will accordingly petition our fellow Nation States within the Union for permission to remove ourselves from that Union which in our considered opinion no longer represents our interests. We are basing that decision on the sections of the Declaration of Independence which is the moral basis for our Nation’s founding. We will agree that we will only invoke the declared secession valid and enforceable with the express permission of our Sister States. We will do this by requiring the same percentages of votes by our Sister States to approve Secession as the same percentage necessary for ratification of an amendment. We will accord every State that wishes to leave the "Perpetual Union" the right to secede using that peaceful artifice.”
“We The People, according to the current Constitution, are invested by it as the highest embodiment of government and governmental power and authority, that being codified and protected by the very Constitution itself. We do not take this step lightly, nor do we take if frivolously. We take it because all of our pleas of the the vast majority of our fellow citizens, amounting to approximately 3/4 of the population of the United States, have in fact been denied their lawful desires by the very representatives who were elected expressly to represent their desired cases for incorporation into general law. We stand in the circumstances that our forebears did before the American Revolution with King George. We seem to be facing King Obama and his Parliament of Congressional Fops who kowtow to his every whim with no regard to the people whom they are legally and honor bound to represent. It is the sickness of modern Progressivism that has brought us to this brink.”
“Furthermore, if any States decide to Secede, We The People will annex all the Regular Military Assets, and Materials, and all Assets of the National Guard units residing in the respective States. We will take peaceful political control of all the Regular Military and National Guard Bases within those States. We will contract with their support industries within those respective states to supply the necessary items to protect and defend our New Nation. However if any of the Military or National Guard Personnel stationed within those Seceded States decide they do not want to be part of the New Nation, we will give them leave to remove themselves peaceably to any States that decided not to secede, but they will not be allowed to take their issued equipment with them other than their personal gear and uniforms.”
articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/...
----------------
You can't make this stuff up. These nutjobs are serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed. Note: The one thing that really sticks out on this is, Paul attributing that We The People Manifesto to the Article V Project To Restore Liberty Site. It is not part of the philosophy of the site. Evidently it came from some other site, and it was lumped in by accident..???
Mangus Colorado Addendum and Commentary 0n this piece:
Typical far left hit piece that uses cut and paste to present their desired message. For the Article V Project does not recommend secession as a remedy. It recommends using Article V to repeal 3 amendments the 14th, 16th and 17th which will restore the Sovereign Republic form intended by the Founders. The left has usurped powers not given Article I section 8 of the actual constitution.
States right were retained in the 9th and 10th amendment further guaranteed in Article V Section 4. So, it is the current tyrannical Federal central government and the courts that have ignored the Constitution. First they used the courts to limit States powers, then they used tax money to bribe the voters and the States to let the Federal Government use the 14th amendment to place all Federal laws above those of the states.
Freedom and Liberty must be fought for and defended everyday as government will seize property and wealth to use for their purposes of gaining more power over individuals.
Jefferson and the Founders knew this day could come and warned us in many quotes like this one.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
The Facts Of Political Life Critical To The Continuation Of Our Constitutional Republic
Remember This Fact Of Political Life; You may not like any of the Candidates for President, and you may feel that you don't want to hold your nose and vote against someone Like Hillary or Bernie by choosing a GOP sponsored Candidate. I fully understand your thought processes on that subject. The one thing that terrifies both parties is the fact that you can vote a split ticket and not vote for any Presidential Candidate or you can write in a Candidate of your choice. Personally, I am going to vote for any candidate that is running against Hillary and Bernie. Both actions come with consequences so you will have to vote your conscience to either not vote for a Presidential Candidate, Write in your choice for a candidate, or Hold your nose and vote. That decision is yours alone!
The consequences are;
1. If you don't vote the party that has the most sycophants at the polls will put that Party's candidate in.
2. If you write in your choice the probability is that they won't win and all you would have done is to make a protest vote that neither party will care about.
3. Holding your nose will most likely help elect the less than desirable candidate, and since there has been so much controversy that Candidate will not be able to please the voters, and will be beset with criticism throughout his Presidency.
Those are the cold hard facts as I see them.
However, The most critical and important thing to insure the Republic won't go out with a whimper is to GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!!!
It is Imperative that everyone starts Vetting the Candidates they can vote for in their States and Precincts. The reason for this will become evident.
We need to get the most conservative Candidates who are running into office, even if they are marginal ones and even if they are from a different party than the one you are usually voting for. In this respect Party affiliation has no place, it's how the candidate has consistently voted on Constitutional Issues throughout their career, and what Issues they have associated themselves with during their careers. Using these factors, I feel it would be prudent to pick the candidate that was closest to what our basic conservative beliefs are.
However, do not get discouraged if you only have a choice between two Progressive Rino's or two Progressive Democrats in some instances, or even if a Democrat or other party is more conservative consistently than the RINO running. Don't forget the Common Sense aspect of the candidates too. Conservatism is also manifest as what was called Common Sense in times past before the Progressive onslaught of Political Correctness de-mented most of the liberal population. Same goes for the Democrats. Simply vote for the one most consistently in line with our conservative beliefs. One will always come out better than the other. The reason for doing this is to load the Congress with the most Common Sense and Conservative leaning representatives as are available, and remember none of them will be a perfect fit for what we want.
The same rules goes for the State Legislatures and Local races as well. So, you can see by doing this we will be ever so slightly be shifting the status quo toward more Conservative values and issues.
Consider what will happen if the most Progressive Socialist Liberal candidates get elected.
The only way to stop that is to get higher numbers of the average American Conservative voters to the polls to vote than the opposition does!
The Tradesman
The consequences are;
1. If you don't vote the party that has the most sycophants at the polls will put that Party's candidate in.
2. If you write in your choice the probability is that they won't win and all you would have done is to make a protest vote that neither party will care about.
3. Holding your nose will most likely help elect the less than desirable candidate, and since there has been so much controversy that Candidate will not be able to please the voters, and will be beset with criticism throughout his Presidency.
Those are the cold hard facts as I see them.
However, The most critical and important thing to insure the Republic won't go out with a whimper is to GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!!!
It is Imperative that everyone starts Vetting the Candidates they can vote for in their States and Precincts. The reason for this will become evident.
We need to get the most conservative Candidates who are running into office, even if they are marginal ones and even if they are from a different party than the one you are usually voting for. In this respect Party affiliation has no place, it's how the candidate has consistently voted on Constitutional Issues throughout their career, and what Issues they have associated themselves with during their careers. Using these factors, I feel it would be prudent to pick the candidate that was closest to what our basic conservative beliefs are.
However, do not get discouraged if you only have a choice between two Progressive Rino's or two Progressive Democrats in some instances, or even if a Democrat or other party is more conservative consistently than the RINO running. Don't forget the Common Sense aspect of the candidates too. Conservatism is also manifest as what was called Common Sense in times past before the Progressive onslaught of Political Correctness de-mented most of the liberal population. Same goes for the Democrats. Simply vote for the one most consistently in line with our conservative beliefs. One will always come out better than the other. The reason for doing this is to load the Congress with the most Common Sense and Conservative leaning representatives as are available, and remember none of them will be a perfect fit for what we want.
The same rules goes for the State Legislatures and Local races as well. So, you can see by doing this we will be ever so slightly be shifting the status quo toward more Conservative values and issues.
Consider what will happen if the most Progressive Socialist Liberal candidates get elected.
The only way to stop that is to get higher numbers of the average American Conservative voters to the polls to vote than the opposition does!
The Tradesman
"Are Democrats Using Google To Silence Free Speech?"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, April 3, 2016 - All Rights Reserved
The Internet has brought an explosion of information to the general public across the globe. Unfortunately, much of the information we get from the Internet, whether it be by websites, e-mail, or on social media, is un-vetted and much of it is misleading and simply not true. Finding the truth can be a real chore sometimes, requiring hours of research and even then the truth may be illusive. Yes, the information flowing unchecked in cyberspace can lead to disagreements from time to time, but thankfully you can’t throw a punch, or pull a trigger, on the Internet.
Nevertheless, the Internet, through all of its medium forms, has provided a conduit for individual expression like never before in the history of man. Opinions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas and images flow freely to tens of millions of individuals in microseconds, every minute, every hour, every day. People of like mind can hook up at the speed of light and organize forums around either specific or general subjects or issues at will. The free flow of ideas, however flawed, is the very epitome of freedom. But what if someone could tamper with this free flow of ideas for a political agenda, or any agenda?
The growth of the Internet has also led to the formation of corporate giants like AOL, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Dell, HP, Microsoft, IBM and thousands of smaller companies. The corporate profits generated by the Internet are in the tens of billions of dollars every year.
Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of corporate giants, awash in cash, is the wielding of great financial and political power to manipulate and exploit the people they allegedly serve. We ran into that manipulative power just recently when we discovered that some conservative authors, including us, are being silenced by a tricky Google tactic (yes, Google) through their web browser, "Google Chrome," by attaching a Security Alert to any website that doesn’t fit the Google liberal narrative. On the Newswithviews website (http://www.newswithviews.com) Google has attached a Security Alert to over half of the authors that write for this conservative, on-line publication. In further research, we found that other websites offering a conservative point of view have also been targeted by Google Chrome’s Security Alerts.
Google’s Security Alerts advise the reader that the particular website they have logged onto may contain Malware and advised to go back to a "safe" page. The Alert is clearly bogus and obviously done for political motives in a highly charged presidential campaign season. Ironically, these Security Alerts only happen with the Google Chrome browser. We could find no such tampering with other browsers. Who controls Google Chrome? Google of course.
Now, if you are thinking that this is just an isolated incident, or an accident, or a coincidence, or a quirk of the Google Chrome browser, think again. The Google Chrome Security Alert suddenly appeared on multiple conservative articles a week or so ago, right after Donald Trump held up an article from the Newswithviews website and the website received over 3,000,000 hits in one day. One might ask, why would Google do this? The answer is simple and glaring.
The political ties to the Democrat Party of Google founders, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, including thousands of Google employees, is well known: From one source we learned that:
"Few Silicon Valley companies have ever embraced a political party as passionately as Google has. Its executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, has been described as a "kind of guru" to President Obama's campaign manager, and Google employees emerged as the No. 2 donor to the Democratic National Committee in the last election."
We were incensed that a major U. S. Corporation would use its power to tamper with free speech and more specifically attempting to silence our conservative articles. So incensed in fact that we penned a terse message to the Google Board of Directors, e-mailing it to their Investor Relations department at the following e-mail address: investor-relations@abc.xyz. We have reprinted that message in its entirety below.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
To Google’s Board of Directors:
Larry Page Sergey Brin Eric E. Schmidt L. John Doerr Diane B. Greene John L. Hennessy Ann Mather Alan R. Mulally Paul S. Otellini K. Ram Shriram Shirley M. TilghmanI am a national author and president of a non-profit corporation that acts as advocates for the American rural landowner. I have been writing a conservative weekly column for 10 years. I have a significant following.
Just recently, I have found many of my articles and many other conservative articles are being tagged with a SECURITY ALERT, for those users using Google Chrome, driving people away from our right to free speech. With specificity, many of the authors that write for the on-line magazinewww.newswithviews.com have been targeted for this Security Alert treatment. But Google is also targeting other on-line publications with this treatment as well.
Google's Mission is, according to the Google website:
"Focus on the user and all else will follow."
"Since the beginning, Google has focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they might have been designed differently."
Does focusing on the user mean censoring what he or she writes? Is that your mission Google Board of Directors?
If that is your mission, then you are un-American and show a perverse propensity for progressivism, socialism, or even communism. Or, you just want to shut up and silence any other debate except the liberal view you obviously hold.
Google has immense power. With power comes responsibility, or that power descends into absolute power.
Which is it Google?
Remove the SECURITY ALERTS now from your Google Chrome browser! Or lose your stellar reputation via the very medium you exploit to advance a political agenda and make huge profits.
We will be sharing this message with thousands of other Internet users.
Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
http://www.narlo.org
* * * * * * * * * * * *
If you are as angry as we are that Google, a great provider of Internet information and services, would under handedly use its immense cyber power to silence opposing views to their own liberal views by electronic trickery, using the Google Chrome browser as its weapon, then perhaps it is time to shut down the Google Investor Relations e-mail address with messages of your displeasure to the Google Board. It will cost you but a few minutes of your time and you can do it right from your own desktop, laptop, Ipad, or Iphone, using the very Internet that Google is abusing for political purposes. Get creative. Do it today. But keep it clean, pithy and professional. Expletives and pejoratives detract from any message.
Google is a huge corporation with unimaginable financial and political power with direct access to President Obama and his administration. To have any effect at all, this article must go viral. It takes millions of people to make a difference in America today. The Internet gives the people the power and the voices to coalesce around an idea or an issue and overcome the power of giant corporations and government. That is if the people aren’t totally distracted by drugs and entertainment and hopelessly apathetic, like we see on the O’Reilly Factor’s Water’s World.
Will you take action by sending your displeasure to the Google Board of Directors for trying to silence free speech? It is our firm wish that thousands of you will do so. Use your voice to make a difference!
If you did send an e-mail message to the Google Board, let us know HERE. Constructive comments are welcome.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
Nevertheless, the Internet, through all of its medium forms, has provided a conduit for individual expression like never before in the history of man. Opinions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas and images flow freely to tens of millions of individuals in microseconds, every minute, every hour, every day. People of like mind can hook up at the speed of light and organize forums around either specific or general subjects or issues at will. The free flow of ideas, however flawed, is the very epitome of freedom. But what if someone could tamper with this free flow of ideas for a political agenda, or any agenda?
The growth of the Internet has also led to the formation of corporate giants like AOL, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Dell, HP, Microsoft, IBM and thousands of smaller companies. The corporate profits generated by the Internet are in the tens of billions of dollars every year.
Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of corporate giants, awash in cash, is the wielding of great financial and political power to manipulate and exploit the people they allegedly serve. We ran into that manipulative power just recently when we discovered that some conservative authors, including us, are being silenced by a tricky Google tactic (yes, Google) through their web browser, "Google Chrome," by attaching a Security Alert to any website that doesn’t fit the Google liberal narrative. On the Newswithviews website (http://www.newswithviews.com) Google has attached a Security Alert to over half of the authors that write for this conservative, on-line publication. In further research, we found that other websites offering a conservative point of view have also been targeted by Google Chrome’s Security Alerts.
Google’s Security Alerts advise the reader that the particular website they have logged onto may contain Malware and advised to go back to a "safe" page. The Alert is clearly bogus and obviously done for political motives in a highly charged presidential campaign season. Ironically, these Security Alerts only happen with the Google Chrome browser. We could find no such tampering with other browsers. Who controls Google Chrome? Google of course.
Now, if you are thinking that this is just an isolated incident, or an accident, or a coincidence, or a quirk of the Google Chrome browser, think again. The Google Chrome Security Alert suddenly appeared on multiple conservative articles a week or so ago, right after Donald Trump held up an article from the Newswithviews website and the website received over 3,000,000 hits in one day. One might ask, why would Google do this? The answer is simple and glaring.
The political ties to the Democrat Party of Google founders, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, including thousands of Google employees, is well known: From one source we learned that:
"Few Silicon Valley companies have ever embraced a political party as passionately as Google has. Its executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, has been described as a "kind of guru" to President Obama's campaign manager, and Google employees emerged as the No. 2 donor to the Democratic National Committee in the last election."
We were incensed that a major U. S. Corporation would use its power to tamper with free speech and more specifically attempting to silence our conservative articles. So incensed in fact that we penned a terse message to the Google Board of Directors, e-mailing it to their Investor Relations department at the following e-mail address: investor-relations@abc.xyz. We have reprinted that message in its entirety below.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
To Google’s Board of Directors:
Larry Page Sergey Brin Eric E. Schmidt L. John Doerr Diane B. Greene John L. Hennessy Ann Mather Alan R. Mulally Paul S. Otellini K. Ram Shriram Shirley M. TilghmanI am a national author and president of a non-profit corporation that acts as advocates for the American rural landowner. I have been writing a conservative weekly column for 10 years. I have a significant following.
Just recently, I have found many of my articles and many other conservative articles are being tagged with a SECURITY ALERT, for those users using Google Chrome, driving people away from our right to free speech. With specificity, many of the authors that write for the on-line magazinewww.newswithviews.com have been targeted for this Security Alert treatment. But Google is also targeting other on-line publications with this treatment as well.
Google's Mission is, according to the Google website:
"Focus on the user and all else will follow."
"Since the beginning, Google has focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they might have been designed differently."
Does focusing on the user mean censoring what he or she writes? Is that your mission Google Board of Directors?
If that is your mission, then you are un-American and show a perverse propensity for progressivism, socialism, or even communism. Or, you just want to shut up and silence any other debate except the liberal view you obviously hold.
Google has immense power. With power comes responsibility, or that power descends into absolute power.
Which is it Google?
Remove the SECURITY ALERTS now from your Google Chrome browser! Or lose your stellar reputation via the very medium you exploit to advance a political agenda and make huge profits.
We will be sharing this message with thousands of other Internet users.
Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
http://www.narlo.org
* * * * * * * * * * * *
If you are as angry as we are that Google, a great provider of Internet information and services, would under handedly use its immense cyber power to silence opposing views to their own liberal views by electronic trickery, using the Google Chrome browser as its weapon, then perhaps it is time to shut down the Google Investor Relations e-mail address with messages of your displeasure to the Google Board. It will cost you but a few minutes of your time and you can do it right from your own desktop, laptop, Ipad, or Iphone, using the very Internet that Google is abusing for political purposes. Get creative. Do it today. But keep it clean, pithy and professional. Expletives and pejoratives detract from any message.
Google is a huge corporation with unimaginable financial and political power with direct access to President Obama and his administration. To have any effect at all, this article must go viral. It takes millions of people to make a difference in America today. The Internet gives the people the power and the voices to coalesce around an idea or an issue and overcome the power of giant corporations and government. That is if the people aren’t totally distracted by drugs and entertainment and hopelessly apathetic, like we see on the O’Reilly Factor’s Water’s World.
Will you take action by sending your displeasure to the Google Board of Directors for trying to silence free speech? It is our firm wish that thousands of you will do so. Use your voice to make a difference!
If you did send an e-mail message to the Google Board, let us know HERE. Constructive comments are welcome.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
"Don't Mess With the Landowners of Tazewell County"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, March 13, 2016 - All Rights Reserved
NOTE: For the last 10 years NARLO has been trying to get across to rural landowners that they can’t fight city hall alone. Finally, we found an example of where the people of a county decided to fight back against big money and crony capitalism to preserve their rural lifestyle. Their efforts paid off big time. These brave people slew the government-developer dragon. Linda Sheets of Tazewell County, VA provided most of the information for this article. We have added some background material to the article to fill in the story.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Whenever government and business get together and make deals, the public suffers. It’s what they call crony capitalism. Business is looking for profit and the government is looking for tax revenue. Such is the case in little Tazewell County, located in Southwestern Virginia, straddling the West Virginia state line. But crony capitalism and corruption are not isolated to a small county in Virginia. They are everywhere, throughout the political process, local, state and federal. Control this crony capitalism and corruption or it will control you. Right now, they do.
It seems that someone came up with the idea of building a giant industrial park (680 acres) along Virginia State Highway 460. The Park was named the Bluestone Regional Business and Technology Center ("Bluestone"). We haven’t been able to determine whom the individual or individuals are who came up with the plan, but what we have found is that the plan appears to have been the brainchild of Tazewell County Supervisors, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority. But you can bet that there is a developer in there somewhere.
According to the County Supervisor of the Eastern District of Tazewell County, one Charlie Stacy, "The concept of Bluestone is live, work and play," he said, adding that, "the center will include upscale companies as well as restaurants, a hotel-conference center, a residential area, recreation facilities, hiking trails, and rental cabins and a lodge higher up on the mountain."
According to Stacy, the county and the other two agencies used a $10,000,000 grant from the Tobacco Commission to build Bluestone. When we say build, it means that all of the infrastructure was installed (roads and utilities) and building pads were graded. That’s it. The park is just bare land with roads water and sewer. Nothing else.
Stacy said that Bluestone was a "wonderful vision for the board" and the grant was the county’s to lose. "You lose that opportunity for the funding if you don’t act," he said."Everybody is competing for it. That money would have been allocated somewhere else if Tazewell County had not worked for it."
Grant funding was also used for much of the remaining $3 million, costing taxpayers relatively little, Stacy added, and the investment will eventually pay off as the economy changes and improves. The word "eventually" is a relative term and could mean anywhere from one year to 100 years.
Unfortunately, this "great vision" of the County Board of Tazewell County Supervisors has sat empty for six years with no takers. It appears that the county threw a party and no one came. This is what happens when government comes up with a commercial idea to raise its tax base. Consequently, county and state government have a costly red herring on their hands and they are working feverishly to cover their collective tails with ordinances to protect that red herring, to the detriment of the local landowners.
To add to the County’s "great vision", Supervisor Stacy pushed for zoning in the county to allow Dominion Power to build an electricity generator Wind Farm on the ridgeline of East River Mountain, directly behind Bluestone. (Remember: Government is always looking for tax money to pay for their expensive promises in exchange for votes.)
However, the other supervisors on the Board objected to the Wind Farm and passed an ordinance to stop Dominion. Then the Board went farther with another ordinance to protect the "great vision" of their red herring.
The farmers of Tazewell County got wind of the Wind Farm (no pun intended) and started digging into the provisions of the two proposed ordinances. They were aghast at what they found in the second ordinance. Which brings us to what the county farmers did about the proposed ordinances, relayed to us by Linda Sheets, a Tazewell County farmer, in her own words.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Tazewell County is located in the southwestern part of Virginia in the Appalachian Mountains. Most of the mountains are so steep that they are inhabited only by deer, turkey ….. and snakes.
In the valleys, beautiful farmland abounds. Some of the farm owners can trace their heritage to a time before Tazewell County existed.
Farming and coal mining had been the backbone of the county until the EPA regulations closed the coalmines. Since most businesses were coal related, there has been a major increase in unemployment rates in the area.
The farms are a major source of income to Tazewell County, and most farmers take great pride in their land. Since there is little employment opportunity, many people have started in-home businesses and several have been quite successful. Citizens are hardworking and resourceful.
Located between the towns of Bluefield and Tazewell on SR 460 is the 680 acres, $13,000,000 Bluestone Industrial Park that has been vacant for the six years since it was built. One business that showed interest in the Park was a dental school that could not procure funding.
Statements made by the purveyors of Bluestone inferred that only high-end companies would be accepted in the park. (Ladies and gentlemen, high-end companies are moving offshore due to lousy trade agreements that eliminate American jobs.) A housing development, recreation area, lodging and, cabins, an upscale restaurant and meeting center are also planned in part of the park. Obviously, if the County Supervisor’s (Charley Stacey) plans materialize, this park will be for the elite. It will have draw on an employment base that is mostly outside of Tazewell County.
Other businesses such as B.P. and Dominion Resources wanted to build a wind electric generation farm on the East River Mountain, but members of the Board of Supervisors led the charge to protect the beauty of the mountain and the home of the snake. The County turned down the $23 -25 million dollars offered by Dominion and passed a tall-structure ordinance to rid the county of an "undesirable" development.
A few months ago Board members announced that another ordinance was needed to protect the park from "undesirable" business, especially from the Wind Farm.
We thought that the tall-structure ordinance was all that was needed. Being skeptical however, some of us attended a planning committee meeting and were shocked to see that the zoning was on farms and that the plans for the farms were to phase some of them out and replace them with residential use.
In-home businesses were to limit the number of their customers. The farmers were told the hours that they could operate their business. UPS and FedEx would be limited to the number of packages delivered to homes. The number of cars parked in a driveway was limited, restricting large family gatherings. The size of trees and shrubbery was specified. Even restrictions were placed on churches. Owners of older homes that could not meet the code would be fined.
Thank goodness Bill Osborne, the president of the Farm Bureau Federation, and some of the Farm Bureau members were also present at the meeting. As word spread from farmer to farmer, people began to question the motives of the Supervisors and the need for the new zoning called for in the proposed ordinance. They began to feel betrayed and angry. Some called the action akin to communism.
As the time for the meeting approached, so did a blizzard. Many people had to remove snowdrifts before they could attend the meeting. They were determined as many of the farmers felt that they were going to lose everything that had been in the family for generations if they did not stand up.
It was estimated that six hundred people attended the meeting. Seventy spoke with only four or five in favor of the new zoning. Emotions were high. Although people acted with restraint they made their feelings clear. They were not going to give up their rights to use their land as they saw fit. They pointed out that the members of the Board and members of the Planning Commission would not be in office after the next election. It was democracy in the purest form. Informed people stood together, united in a common cause to fight for their freedom. The next day the headline in the newspaper read "Ordinance Scrapped."
Is it over, I would like to think so, but I have my doubts. Farmland is being transformed into residential and commercial uses at an alarming rate all across America. When outside developers are involved, farmers suffer. We have learned from our ordeal that we must always be vigilant. We will make an effort to be informed; we will attend meetings to see for ourselves the topics of discussion. We have learned that there is power in numbers and that we must stand together to protect our freedom.
The landowners of Tazewell County found the formula to protect their interests and that formula was to find out what their government was doing and then stand up in large numbers in opposition to what government was doing when it conflicted with the people’s rights.
The landowners of Tazewell County did something. They acted. They didn’t just sit on their hands or pretend the enemy wasn’t there like most Americans do. And they even had to travel through a blizzard to punctuate their displeasure with government. What they did was to beat government at the local level and that is no small task. Because you see ladies and gentlemen the simple fact is, "life is a continual struggle against competing interests. Either protect your interests, or the other side wins."* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do you have a story to tell where you and other landowners beat government, or where government is hurting landowners? Let us bring your story to our national audience. Contact us HERE with the details. OR, if you are having land use problems with local government, it is quite likely we can help. ClickHERE. OR, if you have received a notice of a code violation, we can help as well. Click HERE. If you do receive a notice of a code violation from government, contact us immediately. Don’t delay. You may lose your appeal rights if you do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE LANDOWNER’S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE:
Ladies and gentlemen, the actions taken by the Tazewell County farmers are what all landowners in America need to do if they have any hope of protecting their Constitutional property rights. But rural landowners must also realize that their property line is their first line of defense. Government agents and law enforcement, at every level, believe they have the right to come on your property anytime they wish, for any pretense. They are wrong in that belief. The truth is, each landowner has the constitutional right to exclude anyone from their property, including government agents and law enforcement and that right is fully supported by law precedent. The language from that law precedent appears on NARLO’s new RIGHT-TO-EXCLUDE No Trespass sign. This new sign is a companion to our powerful, legally intimidating, constitutional 18" x 24" No Trespassing sign. Thousands of our signs have been installed on rural lands throughout America. The fact is, land that is not posted with No Trespassing signs is essentially open to all intruders, including government agents and law enforcement. There has to be constructive notice of the right to exclude and our signs provide that notice. To learn more about your first line of defense and NARLO’s valuable No Trespassing signs, click on the links in this paragraph.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
NOTE: For the last 10 years NARLO has been trying to get across to rural landowners that they can’t fight city hall alone. Finally, we found an example of where the people of a county decided to fight back against big money and crony capitalism to preserve their rural lifestyle. Their efforts paid off big time. These brave people slew the government-developer dragon. Linda Sheets of Tazewell County, VA provided most of the information for this article. We have added some background material to the article to fill in the story.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Whenever government and business get together and make deals, the public suffers. It’s what they call crony capitalism. Business is looking for profit and the government is looking for tax revenue. Such is the case in little Tazewell County, located in Southwestern Virginia, straddling the West Virginia state line. But crony capitalism and corruption are not isolated to a small county in Virginia. They are everywhere, throughout the political process, local, state and federal. Control this crony capitalism and corruption or it will control you. Right now, they do.
It seems that someone came up with the idea of building a giant industrial park (680 acres) along Virginia State Highway 460. The Park was named the Bluestone Regional Business and Technology Center ("Bluestone"). We haven’t been able to determine whom the individual or individuals are who came up with the plan, but what we have found is that the plan appears to have been the brainchild of Tazewell County Supervisors, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority. But you can bet that there is a developer in there somewhere.
According to the County Supervisor of the Eastern District of Tazewell County, one Charlie Stacy, "The concept of Bluestone is live, work and play," he said, adding that, "the center will include upscale companies as well as restaurants, a hotel-conference center, a residential area, recreation facilities, hiking trails, and rental cabins and a lodge higher up on the mountain."
According to Stacy, the county and the other two agencies used a $10,000,000 grant from the Tobacco Commission to build Bluestone. When we say build, it means that all of the infrastructure was installed (roads and utilities) and building pads were graded. That’s it. The park is just bare land with roads water and sewer. Nothing else.
Stacy said that Bluestone was a "wonderful vision for the board" and the grant was the county’s to lose. "You lose that opportunity for the funding if you don’t act," he said."Everybody is competing for it. That money would have been allocated somewhere else if Tazewell County had not worked for it."
Grant funding was also used for much of the remaining $3 million, costing taxpayers relatively little, Stacy added, and the investment will eventually pay off as the economy changes and improves. The word "eventually" is a relative term and could mean anywhere from one year to 100 years.
Unfortunately, this "great vision" of the County Board of Tazewell County Supervisors has sat empty for six years with no takers. It appears that the county threw a party and no one came. This is what happens when government comes up with a commercial idea to raise its tax base. Consequently, county and state government have a costly red herring on their hands and they are working feverishly to cover their collective tails with ordinances to protect that red herring, to the detriment of the local landowners.
To add to the County’s "great vision", Supervisor Stacy pushed for zoning in the county to allow Dominion Power to build an electricity generator Wind Farm on the ridgeline of East River Mountain, directly behind Bluestone. (Remember: Government is always looking for tax money to pay for their expensive promises in exchange for votes.)
However, the other supervisors on the Board objected to the Wind Farm and passed an ordinance to stop Dominion. Then the Board went farther with another ordinance to protect the "great vision" of their red herring.
The farmers of Tazewell County got wind of the Wind Farm (no pun intended) and started digging into the provisions of the two proposed ordinances. They were aghast at what they found in the second ordinance. Which brings us to what the county farmers did about the proposed ordinances, relayed to us by Linda Sheets, a Tazewell County farmer, in her own words.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Tazewell County is located in the southwestern part of Virginia in the Appalachian Mountains. Most of the mountains are so steep that they are inhabited only by deer, turkey ….. and snakes.
In the valleys, beautiful farmland abounds. Some of the farm owners can trace their heritage to a time before Tazewell County existed.
Farming and coal mining had been the backbone of the county until the EPA regulations closed the coalmines. Since most businesses were coal related, there has been a major increase in unemployment rates in the area.
The farms are a major source of income to Tazewell County, and most farmers take great pride in their land. Since there is little employment opportunity, many people have started in-home businesses and several have been quite successful. Citizens are hardworking and resourceful.
Located between the towns of Bluefield and Tazewell on SR 460 is the 680 acres, $13,000,000 Bluestone Industrial Park that has been vacant for the six years since it was built. One business that showed interest in the Park was a dental school that could not procure funding.
Statements made by the purveyors of Bluestone inferred that only high-end companies would be accepted in the park. (Ladies and gentlemen, high-end companies are moving offshore due to lousy trade agreements that eliminate American jobs.) A housing development, recreation area, lodging and, cabins, an upscale restaurant and meeting center are also planned in part of the park. Obviously, if the County Supervisor’s (Charley Stacey) plans materialize, this park will be for the elite. It will have draw on an employment base that is mostly outside of Tazewell County.
Other businesses such as B.P. and Dominion Resources wanted to build a wind electric generation farm on the East River Mountain, but members of the Board of Supervisors led the charge to protect the beauty of the mountain and the home of the snake. The County turned down the $23 -25 million dollars offered by Dominion and passed a tall-structure ordinance to rid the county of an "undesirable" development.
A few months ago Board members announced that another ordinance was needed to protect the park from "undesirable" business, especially from the Wind Farm.
We thought that the tall-structure ordinance was all that was needed. Being skeptical however, some of us attended a planning committee meeting and were shocked to see that the zoning was on farms and that the plans for the farms were to phase some of them out and replace them with residential use.
In-home businesses were to limit the number of their customers. The farmers were told the hours that they could operate their business. UPS and FedEx would be limited to the number of packages delivered to homes. The number of cars parked in a driveway was limited, restricting large family gatherings. The size of trees and shrubbery was specified. Even restrictions were placed on churches. Owners of older homes that could not meet the code would be fined.
Thank goodness Bill Osborne, the president of the Farm Bureau Federation, and some of the Farm Bureau members were also present at the meeting. As word spread from farmer to farmer, people began to question the motives of the Supervisors and the need for the new zoning called for in the proposed ordinance. They began to feel betrayed and angry. Some called the action akin to communism.
As the time for the meeting approached, so did a blizzard. Many people had to remove snowdrifts before they could attend the meeting. They were determined as many of the farmers felt that they were going to lose everything that had been in the family for generations if they did not stand up.
It was estimated that six hundred people attended the meeting. Seventy spoke with only four or five in favor of the new zoning. Emotions were high. Although people acted with restraint they made their feelings clear. They were not going to give up their rights to use their land as they saw fit. They pointed out that the members of the Board and members of the Planning Commission would not be in office after the next election. It was democracy in the purest form. Informed people stood together, united in a common cause to fight for their freedom. The next day the headline in the newspaper read "Ordinance Scrapped."
Is it over, I would like to think so, but I have my doubts. Farmland is being transformed into residential and commercial uses at an alarming rate all across America. When outside developers are involved, farmers suffer. We have learned from our ordeal that we must always be vigilant. We will make an effort to be informed; we will attend meetings to see for ourselves the topics of discussion. We have learned that there is power in numbers and that we must stand together to protect our freedom.
The landowners of Tazewell County found the formula to protect their interests and that formula was to find out what their government was doing and then stand up in large numbers in opposition to what government was doing when it conflicted with the people’s rights.
The landowners of Tazewell County did something. They acted. They didn’t just sit on their hands or pretend the enemy wasn’t there like most Americans do. And they even had to travel through a blizzard to punctuate their displeasure with government. What they did was to beat government at the local level and that is no small task. Because you see ladies and gentlemen the simple fact is, "life is a continual struggle against competing interests. Either protect your interests, or the other side wins."* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do you have a story to tell where you and other landowners beat government, or where government is hurting landowners? Let us bring your story to our national audience. Contact us HERE with the details. OR, if you are having land use problems with local government, it is quite likely we can help. ClickHERE. OR, if you have received a notice of a code violation, we can help as well. Click HERE. If you do receive a notice of a code violation from government, contact us immediately. Don’t delay. You may lose your appeal rights if you do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE LANDOWNER’S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE:
Ladies and gentlemen, the actions taken by the Tazewell County farmers are what all landowners in America need to do if they have any hope of protecting their Constitutional property rights. But rural landowners must also realize that their property line is their first line of defense. Government agents and law enforcement, at every level, believe they have the right to come on your property anytime they wish, for any pretense. They are wrong in that belief. The truth is, each landowner has the constitutional right to exclude anyone from their property, including government agents and law enforcement and that right is fully supported by law precedent. The language from that law precedent appears on NARLO’s new RIGHT-TO-EXCLUDE No Trespass sign. This new sign is a companion to our powerful, legally intimidating, constitutional 18" x 24" No Trespassing sign. Thousands of our signs have been installed on rural lands throughout America. The fact is, land that is not posted with No Trespassing signs is essentially open to all intruders, including government agents and law enforcement. There has to be constructive notice of the right to exclude and our signs provide that notice. To learn more about your first line of defense and NARLO’s valuable No Trespassing signs, click on the links in this paragraph.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
SCOTUS, What Will It Become?
Since the passing of Justice Scalia, the Obama administration has the potential to befoul America with blatant Socialist goals, provided he gets his choice of who will sit on the Supreme Court. The NRA has came out solidly against the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court. The NRA cites a long string of rulings where the judge shows a contempt of the 2nd Amendment and it's protection of law abiding Americans rights to own firearms for self protection. Judge Garland it is supposed will reverse Scalia's 'Heller' decision and go beyond it to include other gun control issues.
As it now sits, the SCOTUS is split evenly between four justices who believe the 2nd protects American Citizens rights to own and use firearms for self protection, and the four Socialist Left justices who have a perceived agenda to remove that right. Since it is obvious judging by his speeches and more so by his actions, President Obama shows nothing but contempt for the Second and other amendments that stand in the way of his Socialist designs for America and the NWO sponsored by Soros. The NRA through Chris Cox who is the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, cites the opinions and voting records of Obama's past nominees on the issues
Cox made these concluding statements;"A basic anaylsis of Merrick Garland's judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." " Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court."
Cox's statement was mirrored by Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network who announced an additional $2 million ad campaign in opposition to Garland. Serverino made a statement pointing to Garland's "history of general hostility to the Second Amendment." citing in particular Garland's voting in favor of reviewing a SCOTUS ruling on a restrictive gun law that was struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller
Based on the timing, it seems to me that this is no less than a ploy by the Progressive Socialist Regime of Obama to discredit the Republican Party and the Conservative faction of US citizens to be looked on with disfavor during this most critical election. This seems to be scripted to denigrate Mitch McConnell's decision to NOT look at any nominee by an outgoing President. Furthermore, McConnell's argument, is the same argument that the Liberal Socialist Democrats used against G.W.Bush's nominating. Seems it is ok for them to raise the question and expect all loyal slaves to approve of it because it was part and parcel of the Socialistic/Liberal way to control, but it is totally wrong for the Conservatives to even suggest it.
This looks suspiciously like the Obama Regime and the controlling Progressive hierarchy wanted to break this subject at just the right critical time to denigrate McConnell and the Republicans when McConnell stated he would not bring a confirmation hearing to the floor. The decision by the way is the same one that Kerry, Reid and others put forward when Bush nominated at the end of his Presidency.
What I get from this, is the Judge is against the Constitution and is legislating from the bench. We do not need someone like him controlling our Constitution to conform it to his personal whims, and the whims of the Elitist's who want to make the US into just another Oligarchy that they control.
Remember this chilling fact; In every dictatorship from the present ones back throughout world history, the Oligarchic Dictators and Masters have always contrived to constrain and keep weapons away from the same people they always end up abusing, and in many instances Murdering outright, when those people dare to object to the treatment imposed on them. One modern Dictator said "Political Power Stems From The Barrel Of A Gun" He then confiscated the weapons from his countrymen and murdered millions of them who disagreed with him. that Dictator was Mao Tze Tung. It always starts with restricting the citizenry's access to weapons.
If we sit back and quietly decide to do nothing, or if we only sit by our comfortable computers in our comfortable houses complaining to each other, we will in a very short time have no comfortable houses nor will be be ALLOWED to speak our minds on issues that directly infringe on our daily lives. So, we must start by cornering our Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that we will not abide by a decision by them to confirm Merrick Garland. The real danger lies with who is the next President, and we have very little choice with Trump and Hillary. Although Trump says he adheres to the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, he has a track record of being in the Liberal Left's pocket.
It's high time to take our stolen powers back.
The Tradesman
As it now sits, the SCOTUS is split evenly between four justices who believe the 2nd protects American Citizens rights to own and use firearms for self protection, and the four Socialist Left justices who have a perceived agenda to remove that right. Since it is obvious judging by his speeches and more so by his actions, President Obama shows nothing but contempt for the Second and other amendments that stand in the way of his Socialist designs for America and the NWO sponsored by Soros. The NRA through Chris Cox who is the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, cites the opinions and voting records of Obama's past nominees on the issues
Cox made these concluding statements;"A basic anaylsis of Merrick Garland's judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." " Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court."
Cox's statement was mirrored by Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network who announced an additional $2 million ad campaign in opposition to Garland. Serverino made a statement pointing to Garland's "history of general hostility to the Second Amendment." citing in particular Garland's voting in favor of reviewing a SCOTUS ruling on a restrictive gun law that was struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller
Based on the timing, it seems to me that this is no less than a ploy by the Progressive Socialist Regime of Obama to discredit the Republican Party and the Conservative faction of US citizens to be looked on with disfavor during this most critical election. This seems to be scripted to denigrate Mitch McConnell's decision to NOT look at any nominee by an outgoing President. Furthermore, McConnell's argument, is the same argument that the Liberal Socialist Democrats used against G.W.Bush's nominating. Seems it is ok for them to raise the question and expect all loyal slaves to approve of it because it was part and parcel of the Socialistic/Liberal way to control, but it is totally wrong for the Conservatives to even suggest it.
This looks suspiciously like the Obama Regime and the controlling Progressive hierarchy wanted to break this subject at just the right critical time to denigrate McConnell and the Republicans when McConnell stated he would not bring a confirmation hearing to the floor. The decision by the way is the same one that Kerry, Reid and others put forward when Bush nominated at the end of his Presidency.
What I get from this, is the Judge is against the Constitution and is legislating from the bench. We do not need someone like him controlling our Constitution to conform it to his personal whims, and the whims of the Elitist's who want to make the US into just another Oligarchy that they control.
Remember this chilling fact; In every dictatorship from the present ones back throughout world history, the Oligarchic Dictators and Masters have always contrived to constrain and keep weapons away from the same people they always end up abusing, and in many instances Murdering outright, when those people dare to object to the treatment imposed on them. One modern Dictator said "Political Power Stems From The Barrel Of A Gun" He then confiscated the weapons from his countrymen and murdered millions of them who disagreed with him. that Dictator was Mao Tze Tung. It always starts with restricting the citizenry's access to weapons.
If we sit back and quietly decide to do nothing, or if we only sit by our comfortable computers in our comfortable houses complaining to each other, we will in a very short time have no comfortable houses nor will be be ALLOWED to speak our minds on issues that directly infringe on our daily lives. So, we must start by cornering our Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that we will not abide by a decision by them to confirm Merrick Garland. The real danger lies with who is the next President, and we have very little choice with Trump and Hillary. Although Trump says he adheres to the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, he has a track record of being in the Liberal Left's pocket.
It's high time to take our stolen powers back.
The Tradesman
Update on LaVoy shooting
Source; https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/08/fbi-agents-investigat...
excerpt;[ The United States Department of Justice also announced it is investigating a group of “elite” FBI agents for partaking in a coverup of the shooting, according to the Oregonian.
It turns out, one FBI agent shot his gun twice, but claimed he never fired his gun.
The USDOJ said those bullets did not strike the Arizona rancher, who had been part of a group of activists occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge throughout January.
Finicum, instead, was shot three times in the back by Oregon state police officers, including one bullet that pierced his heart.]
{One of the bullets shot by the FBI agentstruck his vehicle at a different angle than the other shots, which is what led investigators to determine he had lied.}
Here's the link to the family statement; http://www.scribd.com/doc/297166021/Finicum-Family-Statement-1-29-2016G
Source; https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/08/fbi-agents-investigat...
excerpt;[ The United States Department of Justice also announced it is investigating a group of “elite” FBI agents for partaking in a coverup of the shooting, according to the Oregonian.
It turns out, one FBI agent shot his gun twice, but claimed he never fired his gun.
The USDOJ said those bullets did not strike the Arizona rancher, who had been part of a group of activists occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge throughout January.
Finicum, instead, was shot three times in the back by Oregon state police officers, including one bullet that pierced his heart.]
{One of the bullets shot by the FBI agentstruck his vehicle at a different angle than the other shots, which is what led investigators to determine he had lied.}
Here's the link to the family statement; http://www.scribd.com/doc/297166021/Finicum-Family-Statement-1-29-2016G
LaVoy Shooting Video Finally Released.
c
- I firmly believe the enforcement agents who were shooting at the vehicle WITHOUT PROVOCATION, any known DEPARTMENT PROTOCOLS, went well beyond any legal or departmental policy covering such situations, and those enforcement Agents should be indicted for 1st Degree Murder and lesser charges of Attempted murder for what they did after shooting LaVoy Finicum.
I see no legal, procedural, nor moral justification for what they did. Furthermore any supervisors who protected those agents or sequestered evidence or testimony of said agents be charged with aiding and abetting the aforementioned crimes.
I call on the Justice Department to file charges in an open public purview to instigate those charges or be considered by the American Public as deliberately and Formally aiding and abetting the agents who did the shooting at the vehicle without provocation.
The Tradesman
I have been following.the family has released two statements.I have a few points I would like to make.
*It was an ambush. predetermined. i have a friend that lives there, travels the road to work, the entry points from arteries were blocked off, she saw them and worried that there had been a serious accident, it was not a routine traffic stop.
*He crashed into the snow to avoid hitting the authorities standing in the road, TO AVOID USING HIS VEHICLE AS A WEAPON!
*I believe that the FBI video has been edited. it has had the sound removed and the timing markers. the sound would not only record the voices but also the shots.
*I question the new synced version just released that supposedly has the phone footage from inside the car with it. why would a man, exiting a vehicle with his hands in the air, call for them to shoot him. the people in the car have never said that was the case, the FBI video clearly shows a shooter from the trees (in the back), the family reports he was shot 9 times one in the face, he was left to just lie there and die unattended, they did nothing to help him after he was clearly down…they had an ambulance on scene and have had the audacity to bill the family for it.
Lady Boots.
That is the worst tragedy I have ever seen. Everyone of those Officers should be dismissed for unprofessional behavior. They killed that man for no reason except they wanted to force an issue.
Mangus Colorado.
link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=738&v=KfTWtah7aUw This Video needs to be seen in total so the public can make their own conclusions about what happened!
Published on Mar 8, 2016 Source; You tube commentary.
Absolutely stunning footage from a camera (not actually a cell phone)... after firing on LaVoy Finicum's truck while he was complying with a stop by Oregon State Police, LaVoy and his passengers decided to drive on to the safety that Sheriff Palmer of Grant County. As he began to drive off, the authorities shot at the truck again.
As LaVoy first came into view of a deadly roadblock, the agents at the roadblock immediately opened fire on LaVoy. His truck was hit repeatedly. To draw fire away from his passengers, LaVoy jumped out with his hands in the air. He knew he was a dead man. Moments later, he was shot three times in the back.
Agents then began bombarding the truck with bullets, rubber bullets, BIP projectiles and tear gas pellets. Ryan Bundy was hit in the arm.
Remember - the only warrant the authorities had on LaVoy was for the non-violent "crime" of trespassing at a wildlife refuge. They not only fired upon him while he was stopped, but they shot at him from both behind and in front before he even got to the road block. Then he was shot multiple times in the back - never having pulled a gun or committed any act of violence.
Afterward, the authorities fired many lethal rounds through the windows of the truck at the occupants. It is a miracle they weren't killed in the process.
If this is not the America that you believe in, you are invited to unite with us to fight back.
(the following links will be deleted from the AV Editorial if it is believed by the editors and site contributors to not belong there. I need your feedback on this to determine if it is to be removed or allowed to be posted.)
Free membership: www.citizens4constitutionalfreedom.org
Free newsletter: www.tinyurl.com/libertytreenewsletter
Facebook: www.fb.com/citizensforconstitutionalfree dom.news- Ed Note; Is this the opening shots of the Government becoming as deadly to it's citizens as was the SS, NKVD, and Red Guard were to their citizens who dissented? Please discuss this Fully, and pass it around far and wide as you can. Because it affects all of us, and our Basic Constitutional Freedoms.
Where are we? Where are we headed?
If you want, see the video 'sirens song' on You Tube, it compliments the theme of the post; https://www.youtube.com/embed/ujAfhLLVM7E for in my humble opinion they who are running are simply singing a siren song to gather our votes without intending to do what we expect them to do. What America needs so desperately are Statesmen, not Professional Businessmen/Politicians at this critical juncture in our history!.
Sitting here on March the 5th, I am seriously considering throwing in the towel. I don't know how to effectively oppose the monied powers that seem to have already chosen Trump and Hillary as the choices they will give us for the office of President. I have contended since 2009 that the people needed to get realistic about the Primary process and pick their candidates. this has not happened yet. I am thinking that we as a people are eliciting the Mob Mentality that has an IO of 50. I don't know the exact date that American Citizens decided to abandon their birthright, but it must have been in the last 70 years or so, and it may also have gone back 130 years.
We are faced with a situation that is reminiscent of Jason and the Argonauts when they were placed between Scylla and Charybdis. ( Look it up in Greek Mythology if you don't understand the overall meaning). We have absolutely no actually viable candidate for the Dog and Pony show that is the Presidential Primary. It looks like the Monied powers that be, have already decided that we will only be able to vote for Trump or Hillary. I shudder to think what that would mean to the continuing demise of our Constitutional Republic. Actually there is an alternative they have set in motion. We could be voting between Sanders and Trump, or Rubio and Hillary or Sanders, or even between Trump and Biden which would make the people sigh with relief, that is NOT conducive to restoring the Republic in my opinion. It's just another way to bluff the public.
I can see where it is necessary for the American Public to hedge their bets and install a buffer between whoever becomes the President and our real issues and desires for an American future. You would be amazed at how the Progressive left is brainwashing the no to low information public about us and the GOP.
Read this article from the avowed left CNBC news even though it's mostly a Trumptastic anti-conservative piece. My commentary to it will be in bold Italics within the article;
Source; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-must-die-ex-160828701.html
We have a very serious political problem in this country. Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.
"Who says that's the way our government works best? Seems that when the Socialist Democrats had a Super Majority they would have nothing to do with this tactic and now that they are not the majority they want to scream foul and squirm when the same thing is happening to them."Related Stories
Unfortunately, what we have is a centristDemocratic Party and a far-right Republican Party. Therefore, the system is out of balance, creating gridlock even as the public cries out for action on serious problems such as our deteriorating public infrastructure, epitomized by that in Flint, Michigan.
"Can anyone actually believe that the Socialist Democrats are a centrist party? Maybe they would be considered a centrist party if they were in Josef Stalin's politburo, but not here in our Constitutional Republic."
I believe that Republicans made a deal with the devil in 2009 when they embraced the Tea Party , a populist group who were just mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. In Congress , the Tea Party has been aggressive in destroying all the norms that made it work for more than 200 years.
"It never ceases to amaze me how the Uber Left tries to spin and denigrate and demean anything that they don't agree with by using deliberately constructed rhetoric to achieve those ends, and shifting the blame for things they caused onto others, making those others scapegoats, and continuously villifying them. It's similar to when Leon Trotsky in 1927 coined the word RACIST to villify anyone who did not think as the Communist Party wanted them to think, similar to how it's used today."
The government was shut down, increases in the debt limit are constantly at risk, nominations to even the most minor administration positions are blocked and, now, the president has been denied the opportunity, which is his right under the Constitution, to name a new justice to the Supreme Court .
"Somethings really rotten here with the accusation of shutting down the Government and other things of note. It was Harry Reid rejecting out of hand any and all attempts to provide a budget that was the actual cause of the Government shutdown, in fact it was and still is Reid that is the Major Stumbling Block to Bi-Partisan cooperation in Congress. Bear in mind that no essential service like Social security payments or Government pensions were disrupted by the shutdown! This goes further to prove what the left will do to shift the blame from them to a hand picked scapegoat."
Flush with such "victories," extremists of all shapes and sizes were attracted to the Tea Party ranks—Christian religious fanatics, gun nuts, anti-gay bigots, nativists opposed to all nonwhite immigrants, secessionists, conspiracy theorists and, of course, racists.
" Need is say more on how the Progressive Socialist Democrats use their rhetoric to make anyone who is not in complete compliance with their Party Line as evil sub-humans and generally as lunatics?"
What binds them together is hatred. Hatred of government, yes, but also hatred of liberals, minorities, homosexuals, non-fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, feminists, and many other groups.
" I ask you who is the haters here? Those who have legitimate concerns about the fate of their nation and want to correct what they see as critical problems? Or. Those who accuse anyone who does not march in lockstep with their goals and self aggrandizing agendas as haters?" "You actually get to choose what you believe here, which is more than the Progressive Socialist Democrat Elitists will let you do."
Donald Trump , to his credit, figured this out instinctively and pandered to it brilliantly. He channeled the anger and hatred of many whites on the fringes of the economy and society who blame "others" for stagnant wages and other real problems that Republican gridlock in Washington has prevented legislative action on.
" again it's the Socialist Democrat party that has traditionally been the stumbling block for proper movement of Government. How many time have the ultra Rich Democrats condemned the "Rich" for the financial troubles? They only condemn and talk about the "Rich" who are not part and parcel of their Elite Network.
Trump understood that these people didn't so much want solutions to these problems as someone in power to acknowledge their existence and give voice to their frustrations.
Nature abhors a vacuum and also abhors gridlock. Gridlock, in turn, creates fertile soil for fascism—the simplistic desire to get stuff done, much of which does need to get done—regardless of the political cost.
Trump taps into this desire very, very well with his long and carefully developed persona as a brilliant businessman who gets things done. He was perfectly positioned to capitalize on the true populist nature of the Tea Party, which cannot be easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy.
Trump offers them a mishmash of left and right policies—attacks on the war in Iraq and promises of new public infrastructure for the left along with right-wing favorites such as big tax cuts and a wall across the Mexican border.
" Here again is the Pot calling the Kettle Black so to speak. On one hand the Socialist Democrats condemn the GOP and TEA PARTY for not working something out, and when a candidate uses a pick and choose tactic that may work to alleviate some of the problems by drawing from both sides (like a bi-partisan compromise is supposed to do), they complain and readily condemn that candidate for their own nefarious purposes." Trump's opponents never figured him out and now it is too late as he is poised to win the Republican nomination. Many in the Republican establishment are horrified, fearing that he will lead the party to a historic defeat in November. I agree with their fears and that is why I voted for Trump in my state's primary on Super Tuesday.
" It seems to me listening to the complaints from both sides that both parties are afraid of Trump, not for the right reasons I might add, but because he is snookering them, and pointing out their basic faults, foibles, and self aggrandizing rhetoric."
Read More Super Tuesday takeaways: Winners, losers & questions
I believe that only when the GOP suffers a massive defeat will it purge itself of the crazies and forces of intolerance that have taken control of it. Then, and only then, can the GOP become a center-right governing party that deserves to occupy the White House.
" I have to state my idea about that. The GOP Establishment is doing things that will lead to their dissolution by not listening to the majority of their constituents and holding a line mandated Karl Rove, which is totally out of date and is not valid any more since the paradigm has shifted."
The death of today's Republican Party is, therefore, necessary to its survival, in my opinion. And Donald Trump can make it happen, which is why I voted for him.
" Here is another point, is not the Socialist Democratic Party destroying itself by continuing to back Hillary in spite of all the negative and some downright illegal and possibly Traitorous things she has done that are still coming to light?"
" Furthermore, I don't trust the Donald to be the best that can be. I believe that we don't have any perfect candidates running in either party. I feel we must focus on loading Congress, State Legislatures, and even Local positions with true conservatives who will directly oppose the creeping Progressive Socialism that is rotting our Nation from the inside out."
Commentary by Bruce Bartlett, who served as domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury Department official under George H.W.Bush. He also worked on Capitol Hill for the late Rep. Jack Kemp. He is now a writer living in Virginia. Follow him on Twitter @BruceBartlett.
Finally a closing comment from one of my Mentors and someone I am honored and proud to call a friend;
conjecture? I fear, I question, I doubt...mostly I fear. Given that
reality, I work to tend best my own 'garden'. I prepare, i save, I have no
debt, I plan for a future of self-reliance and safety. I pray a lot. I
speak where I can have effect. I recognize sadly the chaos of the state of
our nation...I believe where I am is as stable a place as I can be living
among people who believe as I do. Our most important job is to load in our
library the history and the solution. I think there will come a time when
we sorely need them both.
Lady Boots
Think long and hard on these things;
The Tradesman
Sitting here on March the 5th, I am seriously considering throwing in the towel. I don't know how to effectively oppose the monied powers that seem to have already chosen Trump and Hillary as the choices they will give us for the office of President. I have contended since 2009 that the people needed to get realistic about the Primary process and pick their candidates. this has not happened yet. I am thinking that we as a people are eliciting the Mob Mentality that has an IO of 50. I don't know the exact date that American Citizens decided to abandon their birthright, but it must have been in the last 70 years or so, and it may also have gone back 130 years.
We are faced with a situation that is reminiscent of Jason and the Argonauts when they were placed between Scylla and Charybdis. ( Look it up in Greek Mythology if you don't understand the overall meaning). We have absolutely no actually viable candidate for the Dog and Pony show that is the Presidential Primary. It looks like the Monied powers that be, have already decided that we will only be able to vote for Trump or Hillary. I shudder to think what that would mean to the continuing demise of our Constitutional Republic. Actually there is an alternative they have set in motion. We could be voting between Sanders and Trump, or Rubio and Hillary or Sanders, or even between Trump and Biden which would make the people sigh with relief, that is NOT conducive to restoring the Republic in my opinion. It's just another way to bluff the public.
I can see where it is necessary for the American Public to hedge their bets and install a buffer between whoever becomes the President and our real issues and desires for an American future. You would be amazed at how the Progressive left is brainwashing the no to low information public about us and the GOP.
Read this article from the avowed left CNBC news even though it's mostly a Trumptastic anti-conservative piece. My commentary to it will be in bold Italics within the article;
Source; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-gop-must-die-ex-160828701.html
We have a very serious political problem in this country. Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.
"Who says that's the way our government works best? Seems that when the Socialist Democrats had a Super Majority they would have nothing to do with this tactic and now that they are not the majority they want to scream foul and squirm when the same thing is happening to them."Related Stories
- Donald Trump Nomination Would Forever Change the Republican PartyTheStreet.com
- [$$] How Donald Trump’s Army Is Transforming the GOP The Wall Street Journal
- Seeds of GOP splinter in opposition to all things Obama Associated Press
- These 9 Republicans Say They Won’t Vote for Donald Trump, Even Against Clinton Fortune
- The week the Republican Party implodedBusiness Insider
- Research Reveals 4 Stages Before A Heart AttackPrinceton Nutrients Sponsored
Unfortunately, what we have is a centristDemocratic Party and a far-right Republican Party. Therefore, the system is out of balance, creating gridlock even as the public cries out for action on serious problems such as our deteriorating public infrastructure, epitomized by that in Flint, Michigan.
"Can anyone actually believe that the Socialist Democrats are a centrist party? Maybe they would be considered a centrist party if they were in Josef Stalin's politburo, but not here in our Constitutional Republic."
I believe that Republicans made a deal with the devil in 2009 when they embraced the Tea Party , a populist group who were just mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. In Congress , the Tea Party has been aggressive in destroying all the norms that made it work for more than 200 years.
"It never ceases to amaze me how the Uber Left tries to spin and denigrate and demean anything that they don't agree with by using deliberately constructed rhetoric to achieve those ends, and shifting the blame for things they caused onto others, making those others scapegoats, and continuously villifying them. It's similar to when Leon Trotsky in 1927 coined the word RACIST to villify anyone who did not think as the Communist Party wanted them to think, similar to how it's used today."
The government was shut down, increases in the debt limit are constantly at risk, nominations to even the most minor administration positions are blocked and, now, the president has been denied the opportunity, which is his right under the Constitution, to name a new justice to the Supreme Court .
"Somethings really rotten here with the accusation of shutting down the Government and other things of note. It was Harry Reid rejecting out of hand any and all attempts to provide a budget that was the actual cause of the Government shutdown, in fact it was and still is Reid that is the Major Stumbling Block to Bi-Partisan cooperation in Congress. Bear in mind that no essential service like Social security payments or Government pensions were disrupted by the shutdown! This goes further to prove what the left will do to shift the blame from them to a hand picked scapegoat."
Flush with such "victories," extremists of all shapes and sizes were attracted to the Tea Party ranks—Christian religious fanatics, gun nuts, anti-gay bigots, nativists opposed to all nonwhite immigrants, secessionists, conspiracy theorists and, of course, racists.
" Need is say more on how the Progressive Socialist Democrats use their rhetoric to make anyone who is not in complete compliance with their Party Line as evil sub-humans and generally as lunatics?"
What binds them together is hatred. Hatred of government, yes, but also hatred of liberals, minorities, homosexuals, non-fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, feminists, and many other groups.
" I ask you who is the haters here? Those who have legitimate concerns about the fate of their nation and want to correct what they see as critical problems? Or. Those who accuse anyone who does not march in lockstep with their goals and self aggrandizing agendas as haters?" "You actually get to choose what you believe here, which is more than the Progressive Socialist Democrat Elitists will let you do."
Donald Trump , to his credit, figured this out instinctively and pandered to it brilliantly. He channeled the anger and hatred of many whites on the fringes of the economy and society who blame "others" for stagnant wages and other real problems that Republican gridlock in Washington has prevented legislative action on.
" again it's the Socialist Democrat party that has traditionally been the stumbling block for proper movement of Government. How many time have the ultra Rich Democrats condemned the "Rich" for the financial troubles? They only condemn and talk about the "Rich" who are not part and parcel of their Elite Network.
Trump understood that these people didn't so much want solutions to these problems as someone in power to acknowledge their existence and give voice to their frustrations.
Nature abhors a vacuum and also abhors gridlock. Gridlock, in turn, creates fertile soil for fascism—the simplistic desire to get stuff done, much of which does need to get done—regardless of the political cost.
Trump taps into this desire very, very well with his long and carefully developed persona as a brilliant businessman who gets things done. He was perfectly positioned to capitalize on the true populist nature of the Tea Party, which cannot be easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy.
Trump offers them a mishmash of left and right policies—attacks on the war in Iraq and promises of new public infrastructure for the left along with right-wing favorites such as big tax cuts and a wall across the Mexican border.
" Here again is the Pot calling the Kettle Black so to speak. On one hand the Socialist Democrats condemn the GOP and TEA PARTY for not working something out, and when a candidate uses a pick and choose tactic that may work to alleviate some of the problems by drawing from both sides (like a bi-partisan compromise is supposed to do), they complain and readily condemn that candidate for their own nefarious purposes." Trump's opponents never figured him out and now it is too late as he is poised to win the Republican nomination. Many in the Republican establishment are horrified, fearing that he will lead the party to a historic defeat in November. I agree with their fears and that is why I voted for Trump in my state's primary on Super Tuesday.
" It seems to me listening to the complaints from both sides that both parties are afraid of Trump, not for the right reasons I might add, but because he is snookering them, and pointing out their basic faults, foibles, and self aggrandizing rhetoric."
Read More Super Tuesday takeaways: Winners, losers & questions
I believe that only when the GOP suffers a massive defeat will it purge itself of the crazies and forces of intolerance that have taken control of it. Then, and only then, can the GOP become a center-right governing party that deserves to occupy the White House.
" I have to state my idea about that. The GOP Establishment is doing things that will lead to their dissolution by not listening to the majority of their constituents and holding a line mandated Karl Rove, which is totally out of date and is not valid any more since the paradigm has shifted."
The death of today's Republican Party is, therefore, necessary to its survival, in my opinion. And Donald Trump can make it happen, which is why I voted for him.
" Here is another point, is not the Socialist Democratic Party destroying itself by continuing to back Hillary in spite of all the negative and some downright illegal and possibly Traitorous things she has done that are still coming to light?"
" Furthermore, I don't trust the Donald to be the best that can be. I believe that we don't have any perfect candidates running in either party. I feel we must focus on loading Congress, State Legislatures, and even Local positions with true conservatives who will directly oppose the creeping Progressive Socialism that is rotting our Nation from the inside out."
Commentary by Bruce Bartlett, who served as domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury Department official under George H.W.Bush. He also worked on Capitol Hill for the late Rep. Jack Kemp. He is now a writer living in Virginia. Follow him on Twitter @BruceBartlett.
Finally a closing comment from one of my Mentors and someone I am honored and proud to call a friend;
conjecture? I fear, I question, I doubt...mostly I fear. Given that
reality, I work to tend best my own 'garden'. I prepare, i save, I have no
debt, I plan for a future of self-reliance and safety. I pray a lot. I
speak where I can have effect. I recognize sadly the chaos of the state of
our nation...I believe where I am is as stable a place as I can be living
among people who believe as I do. Our most important job is to load in our
library the history and the solution. I think there will come a time when
we sorely need them both.
Lady Boots
Think long and hard on these things;
The Tradesman
"The FEDS Are Determined to Bury the Bundy Movement"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, February 28, 2016 - All Rights Reserved
"In Paris, I found myself surrounded by Germans; they were all over the place. They played music, and people would go and listen to them! All along rue de Rivoli, as far as you could see from place de la Concorde, there were enormous swastika banners five or six floors high. I just thought, this is impossible. Imagine that someone comes into your home—someone you don’t like—he settles down, gives orders: ‘Here we are, we’re at home now; you must obey.’ To me that was unbearable." ― Pearl Witherington Cornioley, Code Name Pauline: Memoirs of a World War II Special Agent
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The French found themselves occupied by German forces that spawned the French Resistance. Many of those in the Resistance paid with their lives in fighting a guerilla war against the Nazis. They would have lost that war, to a man, had the U. S. not stepped in to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II.
Now, many farmers and ranchers in America are discovering that there is someone they don’t like settling down in their "home" and giving orders they must obey. That this event would spawn a resistance, especially in the West, was not too hard to predict. This semi-silent resistance, starting with the Sage Rebellion in the 1970’s, culminated in an armed standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Southeastern Nevada on April 12, 2014 where at least 400 civilians, some of them armed, confronted around 200 heavily armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents over rancher, Cliven Bundy, continuing to graze his cattle on federal land without paying the fees and in violation of two court orders.
The Nevada standoff, which resulted in an unexpected BLM stand down, was the kindling and the spark that lighted a fire for further open resistance against rising government intransigence in the management of federal lands that spilled over onto adjoining private ranch lands and the century-old tradition of raising cattle in America.
When Steven and Dwight Hammond, Oregon ranchers, were accused of arson and sent to jail for five years on trumped up terrorist charges by the BLM, another spark hit the tinder dry desert that resulted in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Reserve in Oregon by none other than Cliven Bundy’s two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy. The two sons were accompanied by a couple of dozen other armed militia and ranchers that had had enough of BLM bullies and decided to punctuate their displeasure with the display of guns in an open challenge to the FEDS.
One of those ranchers was Lavoy Finicum who was gunned down by law enforcement at a roadblock on a rural Oregon highway. Some say Finicum was murdered to silence him because of his open defiance of government on his own ranch. The rest of the Bundy crew that occupied the Malheur Wildlife Preserve have been arrested and charged with multiple federal violations. They are now in jail facing trial.
When Cliven Bundy flew to Portland to be with his two sons who were in jail from the Malheur Wildlife Preserve standoff, the FBI arrested Cliven at the Portland Airport and charged him with multiple federal violations connected with the armed standoff in Nevada in April 2014. Why they waited so long to arrest Bundy has yet to be disclosed by the FBI.
All of the Bundy men are now in jail. A Federal judge has ordered the Bundy’s to be extradited to Nevada to face 16 federal charges in connection with the 2014 event. This will be on top of the charges brought against the younger Bundy’s and others from the Oregon event. Cliven Bundy was denied bail by an Oregon federal judge, stating that the elder Bundy was a flight risk.
U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden expectedly said, "Persons who use force and violence against federal law enforcement officers who are enforcing court orders, and nearly causing catastrophic loss of life or injury to others, will be brought to justice."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/cliven-bundy-bail-hearing-oregon/
The Bundy’s and the other participants in the Oregon standoff, will no doubt go to jail for a very long time.
We will set aside for the moment that what the Bundy’s did in either event was a direct violation of law and court orders. Nevertheless, what most can’t seem to grasp, except maybe rural landowners, is that the Bundy-led events in Nevada and then in Oregon, are bigger than the sum of those events. They were and are a totally predictable equal and opposite reaction to the rise of government tyranny, driven and motivated by national and international radical environmentalism, ala Agenda 21. The name "Bundy" has become synonymous with an almost totally Western mindset that epitomizes a national resistance movement against environmentally motivated tyrants.
But the FEDS are determined to silence the Bundy movement and nip any spot fires from it, in the bud. They will, through the courts, make an example out of the Bundy’s for all those who might consider taking on the big bad vicious wolf, known as the federal government. The trials for these men will be closed to the public. News of the trials and the verdicts could be buried on page 23, if they appear at all. Or, maybe the opposite will be true in the FEDS attempts to scare off any would-be Bundy wannabes, you know, like Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Bundy’s, for all intent and purposes, will be silent martyrs of an American resistance movement that the FEDS hope will fade into obscurity.
No, America has not morphed into the German Third Reich. There are not Socialist Banners hanging on the side of buildings anywhere in America, or giant images of Obama. The Nazi SS, or storm troopers, do not occupy the streets of America ….. yet! We fully acknowledge that. But tyranny comes in many forms and rises at different rates. In Germany, the straw man was the infallibility of the superior Arian race as perceived by Hitler. All other races were inferior and it was the mission of the Germans to conquer and rule over all inferior races, by any means, or kill them outright. And kill them they did, by the millions. How is this any different than the current batch of insane Islamic Jihadists?
But today the straw man has become the infallibility of the environment. It supersedes and takes priority over unalienable individual rights, by almost any means, including enforcement by the law and guns. That this environmental infallibility would come in conflict with individual unalienable rights, especially here in America, was not only not hard to predict, it was pre-ordained. We now live in worldwide environmental fascism. The international climate initiatives to limit CO2 to allegedly protect the planet fromMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, that came out of the Paris Climate Summit last December, is just another tentacle of that fascism. It is not about the environment ladies and gentlemen. It is about control of the masses and the transfer of America’s wealth and so is this land battle raging in the West. How dare we challenge government’s orders and their vast" wisdom!" Of course, they are never wrong and they never make mistakes. In a pig’s eye!
Environmentalists, foreign interests, (yes foreign interests) the Indians and government have conspired together to drive man out of the rural areas of America, in preference to plants and animals. The following quote is an example of the environmentalist’s mentality:
"I put animals over peoples feelings ANYDAY. I would gladly step over a dying human to get to an injured animal. That’s how I am." - Posted by AminalTales
The environmentalists, the Indians and the government, are using the law and Kangaroo courts to accomplish their means. Constitutional property rights are overridden by judicial decrees. The EPA, by fiat, is taking over all waters of America and thumbing its nose at Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court. The EPA has become a fascist power unto itself, virtually without accountability. Who got fired, or went to jail, in the Gold Mine spill in Utah? No one! Meanwhile, the Congress appears impotent, or reluctant, to stop them.
Indians are expanding their ancient treaty rights well beyond their reservations and are gobbling up more land, water and resources, with the help of foreign interests, environmentalists and the courts. Powerful environmental groups lobby congress and sue the government to accomplish their goals and at the same time reap large profits from court settlements, paid by taxpayer dollars. Much of what is taking place is described by an article in the Land and Water USA website at this link:
http://www.landandwaterusa.blogspot.com/2016/02/every-rural-american-should.html
The article includes a video by attorney Larry Kogan, describing how the "dirty" work has been and is being done by your government.
As more of this information sinks into the rural population, the Bundy Movement will only grow in size and force. No matter what the government does to the Bundy’s, conflicts between rural landowners and the government will increase. If the government’s hope was to silence the Bundy Movement by punitive actions and incarceration, they will be disappointed. The actions by the Bundy’s, however ill advised, have exposed a government that no longer preserves, protects and defends the unalienable rights of its citizens and instead is taking those rights away by force, under the guise of radical environmentalism, just a different type of fascism.
So the question remains, at the present rate of the loss of liberty, how long will it be before an American version of the SS and storm troopers are patrolling our cities, towns, villages and the country side, as they did in Germany? It won’t be very long, (as we keep repeating) if "a critical mass of dedicated and courageous Americans don’t decide to resist government tyranny by acts of civil disobedience on a grand scale, punctuated by the threat of force if necessary, or by some other effective legal means."
We could turn America around in one or two presidential election cycles with our three-part "legal plan, provided there were enough dedicated souls and the funds necessary to implement the plan. It’s taken the last 5 years to perfect that plan and we could accomplish it with an organization of much less than a "Critical Mass" ….. and enough money. Like many patriots who want to see something positive occur in their lifetime, we grow weary of waiting. It’s long past time to act. If you would like to preview a brief summary of our plan, click HERE.
Related articles:
"The Oregon Standoff Was A Predictable Reaction to Oppression" - 2/14/16"
"The Futility of the Oregon Armed Standoff" - 2/7/16"
"The Makings of An American West Rebellion!" - 1/24/16"
"Secession or War - American West Against the East" - 12/6/15"
"The Environmentalist’s Plan Is An Outright Vicious Attack On Freedom" - 11/15/15"
"Government Doesn't Give You Freedom, You Take It!" - 4/5/15"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The French found themselves occupied by German forces that spawned the French Resistance. Many of those in the Resistance paid with their lives in fighting a guerilla war against the Nazis. They would have lost that war, to a man, had the U. S. not stepped in to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II.
Now, many farmers and ranchers in America are discovering that there is someone they don’t like settling down in their "home" and giving orders they must obey. That this event would spawn a resistance, especially in the West, was not too hard to predict. This semi-silent resistance, starting with the Sage Rebellion in the 1970’s, culminated in an armed standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Southeastern Nevada on April 12, 2014 where at least 400 civilians, some of them armed, confronted around 200 heavily armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents over rancher, Cliven Bundy, continuing to graze his cattle on federal land without paying the fees and in violation of two court orders.
The Nevada standoff, which resulted in an unexpected BLM stand down, was the kindling and the spark that lighted a fire for further open resistance against rising government intransigence in the management of federal lands that spilled over onto adjoining private ranch lands and the century-old tradition of raising cattle in America.
When Steven and Dwight Hammond, Oregon ranchers, were accused of arson and sent to jail for five years on trumped up terrorist charges by the BLM, another spark hit the tinder dry desert that resulted in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Reserve in Oregon by none other than Cliven Bundy’s two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy. The two sons were accompanied by a couple of dozen other armed militia and ranchers that had had enough of BLM bullies and decided to punctuate their displeasure with the display of guns in an open challenge to the FEDS.
One of those ranchers was Lavoy Finicum who was gunned down by law enforcement at a roadblock on a rural Oregon highway. Some say Finicum was murdered to silence him because of his open defiance of government on his own ranch. The rest of the Bundy crew that occupied the Malheur Wildlife Preserve have been arrested and charged with multiple federal violations. They are now in jail facing trial.
When Cliven Bundy flew to Portland to be with his two sons who were in jail from the Malheur Wildlife Preserve standoff, the FBI arrested Cliven at the Portland Airport and charged him with multiple federal violations connected with the armed standoff in Nevada in April 2014. Why they waited so long to arrest Bundy has yet to be disclosed by the FBI.
All of the Bundy men are now in jail. A Federal judge has ordered the Bundy’s to be extradited to Nevada to face 16 federal charges in connection with the 2014 event. This will be on top of the charges brought against the younger Bundy’s and others from the Oregon event. Cliven Bundy was denied bail by an Oregon federal judge, stating that the elder Bundy was a flight risk.
U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Bogden expectedly said, "Persons who use force and violence against federal law enforcement officers who are enforcing court orders, and nearly causing catastrophic loss of life or injury to others, will be brought to justice."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/cliven-bundy-bail-hearing-oregon/
The Bundy’s and the other participants in the Oregon standoff, will no doubt go to jail for a very long time.
We will set aside for the moment that what the Bundy’s did in either event was a direct violation of law and court orders. Nevertheless, what most can’t seem to grasp, except maybe rural landowners, is that the Bundy-led events in Nevada and then in Oregon, are bigger than the sum of those events. They were and are a totally predictable equal and opposite reaction to the rise of government tyranny, driven and motivated by national and international radical environmentalism, ala Agenda 21. The name "Bundy" has become synonymous with an almost totally Western mindset that epitomizes a national resistance movement against environmentally motivated tyrants.
But the FEDS are determined to silence the Bundy movement and nip any spot fires from it, in the bud. They will, through the courts, make an example out of the Bundy’s for all those who might consider taking on the big bad vicious wolf, known as the federal government. The trials for these men will be closed to the public. News of the trials and the verdicts could be buried on page 23, if they appear at all. Or, maybe the opposite will be true in the FEDS attempts to scare off any would-be Bundy wannabes, you know, like Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Bundy’s, for all intent and purposes, will be silent martyrs of an American resistance movement that the FEDS hope will fade into obscurity.
No, America has not morphed into the German Third Reich. There are not Socialist Banners hanging on the side of buildings anywhere in America, or giant images of Obama. The Nazi SS, or storm troopers, do not occupy the streets of America ….. yet! We fully acknowledge that. But tyranny comes in many forms and rises at different rates. In Germany, the straw man was the infallibility of the superior Arian race as perceived by Hitler. All other races were inferior and it was the mission of the Germans to conquer and rule over all inferior races, by any means, or kill them outright. And kill them they did, by the millions. How is this any different than the current batch of insane Islamic Jihadists?
But today the straw man has become the infallibility of the environment. It supersedes and takes priority over unalienable individual rights, by almost any means, including enforcement by the law and guns. That this environmental infallibility would come in conflict with individual unalienable rights, especially here in America, was not only not hard to predict, it was pre-ordained. We now live in worldwide environmental fascism. The international climate initiatives to limit CO2 to allegedly protect the planet fromMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, that came out of the Paris Climate Summit last December, is just another tentacle of that fascism. It is not about the environment ladies and gentlemen. It is about control of the masses and the transfer of America’s wealth and so is this land battle raging in the West. How dare we challenge government’s orders and their vast" wisdom!" Of course, they are never wrong and they never make mistakes. In a pig’s eye!
Environmentalists, foreign interests, (yes foreign interests) the Indians and government have conspired together to drive man out of the rural areas of America, in preference to plants and animals. The following quote is an example of the environmentalist’s mentality:
"I put animals over peoples feelings ANYDAY. I would gladly step over a dying human to get to an injured animal. That’s how I am." - Posted by AminalTales
The environmentalists, the Indians and the government, are using the law and Kangaroo courts to accomplish their means. Constitutional property rights are overridden by judicial decrees. The EPA, by fiat, is taking over all waters of America and thumbing its nose at Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court. The EPA has become a fascist power unto itself, virtually without accountability. Who got fired, or went to jail, in the Gold Mine spill in Utah? No one! Meanwhile, the Congress appears impotent, or reluctant, to stop them.
Indians are expanding their ancient treaty rights well beyond their reservations and are gobbling up more land, water and resources, with the help of foreign interests, environmentalists and the courts. Powerful environmental groups lobby congress and sue the government to accomplish their goals and at the same time reap large profits from court settlements, paid by taxpayer dollars. Much of what is taking place is described by an article in the Land and Water USA website at this link:
http://www.landandwaterusa.blogspot.com/2016/02/every-rural-american-should.html
The article includes a video by attorney Larry Kogan, describing how the "dirty" work has been and is being done by your government.
As more of this information sinks into the rural population, the Bundy Movement will only grow in size and force. No matter what the government does to the Bundy’s, conflicts between rural landowners and the government will increase. If the government’s hope was to silence the Bundy Movement by punitive actions and incarceration, they will be disappointed. The actions by the Bundy’s, however ill advised, have exposed a government that no longer preserves, protects and defends the unalienable rights of its citizens and instead is taking those rights away by force, under the guise of radical environmentalism, just a different type of fascism.
So the question remains, at the present rate of the loss of liberty, how long will it be before an American version of the SS and storm troopers are patrolling our cities, towns, villages and the country side, as they did in Germany? It won’t be very long, (as we keep repeating) if "a critical mass of dedicated and courageous Americans don’t decide to resist government tyranny by acts of civil disobedience on a grand scale, punctuated by the threat of force if necessary, or by some other effective legal means."
We could turn America around in one or two presidential election cycles with our three-part "legal plan, provided there were enough dedicated souls and the funds necessary to implement the plan. It’s taken the last 5 years to perfect that plan and we could accomplish it with an organization of much less than a "Critical Mass" ….. and enough money. Like many patriots who want to see something positive occur in their lifetime, we grow weary of waiting. It’s long past time to act. If you would like to preview a brief summary of our plan, click HERE.
Related articles:
"The Oregon Standoff Was A Predictable Reaction to Oppression" - 2/14/16"
"The Futility of the Oregon Armed Standoff" - 2/7/16"
"The Makings of An American West Rebellion!" - 1/24/16"
"Secession or War - American West Against the East" - 12/6/15"
"The Environmentalist’s Plan Is An Outright Vicious Attack On Freedom" - 11/15/15"
"Government Doesn't Give You Freedom, You Take It!" - 4/5/15"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
Utah Senate votes to repeal 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (with video)
The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Feb 24 2016 11:36AM • Last Updated Feb 24 2016 04:20 pm
Source; http://www.sltrib.com/news/3576711-155/utah-senate-votes-to-repeal-17th?ref=yfp
See Video on You Tube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7ulQcEyJlc
The Utah Senate on Wednesday called on Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment — so that state senators could again select U.S. senators.
It voted 20-6 to pass SJR2, and sent it to the House. It calls for Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1913 to allow people to directly elect U.S. senators.
Its sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson, R-Highland, says electing senators by the state Senate is needed because no branch of the federal government now represents the needs of state governments. A change would force senators to do that. "Today, senators are more beholden to special interest groups than to their states" because those interests give them money for reelection, Jackson said.
He added, "It's time for our senators to come home every weekend and take direction from this body and from the House and the governor on how they should vote in the upcoming week."
Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, agreed. "We represent the people and we are the ones who can respond and give direction to our senators."
Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, disputed the plan's logic. U.S. senators are now the only lawmakers elected by all voters in the state, she said, and therefore are not affected by redistricting that she says may have favored Republicans in Utah. She said repealing the amendment would also take away power from voters.
— Lee Davidson
Ed.Note:In my considered opinion, Luz Escamilla (D) Salt Lake City,obviously has forgotten the portion of the Constitution that codified the Connecticut Compromise in Article 1, mandating that Senators are supposed to Represent their States and be directed by their State Legislatures and not directly represent the people. The 17th reversed that and ordered direct elections of Senators by the people. The problem now is they only support and owe allegiance to their Political Party and Special Interest Groups, not primarily the States nor the people. In my opinion that is 50% of what has gotten us in such dire straights today. We need 37 more states to adopt that resolution.
See Video on You Tube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7ulQcEyJlc
The Utah Senate on Wednesday called on Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment — so that state senators could again select U.S. senators.
It voted 20-6 to pass SJR2, and sent it to the House. It calls for Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1913 to allow people to directly elect U.S. senators.
Its sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson, R-Highland, says electing senators by the state Senate is needed because no branch of the federal government now represents the needs of state governments. A change would force senators to do that. "Today, senators are more beholden to special interest groups than to their states" because those interests give them money for reelection, Jackson said.
He added, "It's time for our senators to come home every weekend and take direction from this body and from the House and the governor on how they should vote in the upcoming week."
Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, agreed. "We represent the people and we are the ones who can respond and give direction to our senators."
Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, disputed the plan's logic. U.S. senators are now the only lawmakers elected by all voters in the state, she said, and therefore are not affected by redistricting that she says may have favored Republicans in Utah. She said repealing the amendment would also take away power from voters.
— Lee Davidson
Ed.Note:In my considered opinion, Luz Escamilla (D) Salt Lake City,obviously has forgotten the portion of the Constitution that codified the Connecticut Compromise in Article 1, mandating that Senators are supposed to Represent their States and be directed by their State Legislatures and not directly represent the people. The 17th reversed that and ordered direct elections of Senators by the people. The problem now is they only support and owe allegiance to their Political Party and Special Interest Groups, not primarily the States nor the people. In my opinion that is 50% of what has gotten us in such dire straights today. We need 37 more states to adopt that resolution.
"The Oregon Standoff Was A Predictable Reaction to Oppression"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, February 14 2016 - All Rights Reserved
"The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of the bad people, but because of the silence of the good people." Napoleon
* * * * * * * * * * *
When rational environmentalism became radical environmentalism in the 1970’s, the aggression AGAINT the rural landowner has grown to an all out war ON the rural landowner, enforced by ever-growing, ever-expanding federal agencies that have morphed into a Nazi-like, heavily-armed police force. A way of life on the range that grew out of the American West and raised the protein that Americans consume, has been determined by the environmentalists and the government to be an anachronism and passé, in favor of the creatures and the plants. Legal grazing and water right allotments, with the force of law, have been unilaterally overturned by federal agencies, irrespective of the law of allotments, protected by U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Allotment fees have been raised by several factors and grazing and water permits have been reduced, or eliminated. Private lands have been saddled with massive buffers and conservation easements, or outright confiscation. Due process is a mirage as many landowners have found out the hard way.
We depict this ongoing assault on rural landowners in our video entitled, "Rural America in the Crosshairs."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDHS9xFDh90&feature=youtu.be
The government, at the behest of the radical environmentalists, has decided to turn the American West into a private reserve for flora and fauna where no human can go. Much of America has become off limits to any human activity. Ranches and farms are being seized and raided by government, or are being forced out of business by government actions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are the tools that government, the environmentalists and lawyers use to do their dirty work. The individual landowner is helpless when the all-powerful government sets its sights on a rancher or farmer.
In a recent article in the Independent Sentinel they wrote this:
"The land grabs began more than two decades ago."
"Thanks to the extremists involved in The Wildlands Project of 1992 and their cozy relationship with greedy government bureaucrats, ranchers throughout the West are being squeezed off their land. The extremists work in conjunction with liberal Federal judges who aid and abet the theft."
"Ranchers are having their cattle seized and being refused water and grazing rights so the government can take over Western land and declare it "open spaces."
"The Wildlands Project, now called the Wildlands Network, works in coordination with the government and other extremist groups. They have "set aside the goal of preserving 50% of the North American continent as ‘wild land’ for the preservation of biological diversity, according to their own stated goals on their website. It conforms to the UN plan."
"The Wildlands plan is to create larger public lands by acquiring private lands adjoining public lands. Re-wilding the land that they have set aside for nature, requires moving humans into human settlements."
That’s right. The environmentalist’s stated goal is to move "man" out of the rural areas and into big cities with mass transportation, where they can walk or ride their bicycle to work. No cars. Cars are bad. National and international environmentalists have seduced the U. S. Government to pass legislation to further that goal and they are well on their way to achieving it.
Those that live in big cities and are dependent on government for just about everything, are all for shoving "man" off the land to join them in their dependent cities. Thanks to endless government and environmental propaganda on the airways, in newspapers, in our public schools and our liberal colleges, the general, un-informed public, thinks it’s a great idea.
People always say that times change and they do, but not so when you are raising America’s food and protein. It takes a lot of rangeland and water to raise cattle and sheep. It takes a lot of flat land to raise crops. If we give the land all away to the plants and animals and drive the ranchers and farmers out of business, what will American’s eat?
All across the West, resistance to government oppression, driven by radical environmentalism and Agenda 21, is on the rise. The government is restricting access to known water rights and cutting off access to private lands that must go through public lands, even though the access is granted by deed or allotment. The reaction by one landowner was swift and succinct. "Our fight was about our land. They wanted me to put a fence 180 feet from my creek and keep my livestock from using it. I paid for that land, and I’ll be damned if the feds are going to tell me I can’t use even a sliver of it."
In the West, range wars were fought over water and grazing rights and fencing off the open range. Many people died in those wars. Then, it was private landowner at war with other private landowners or settlers who were fencing off the land for farming. Now the war is private landowners against the government.
But what the GOVERNMENT giveth, the GOVERNMENT can taketh away.
From the middle of the 1800’s to 1934, the government allowed virtually unrestricted cattle and sheep grazing on unreserved public lands. These grazing "rights" were called allotments. Then in 1934, it was determined that the government should better manage unreserved public lands and passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 that provided for the regulation of grazing and water rights. Currently, there are some 182,000,000 acres of public land under grazing allotments. 182,000,000 acres is larger than the State of Texas.
As we said, it takes a lot of land to raise cattle and sheep. The government allotments allowed ranchers to expand their herds on other than private land holdings. Those allotments came with water rights because you can’t raise cattle and sheep without water. Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the allotments were actual contracts with ranchers and were good for 10 years, but renewable. The ranchers had to pay grazing fees during the life of the allotment contract. Grazing cattle and sheep on public lands became a necessary and vital component of feeding a growing and hungry nation.
Along came environmentalism in the 1970’s and grazing cattle and sheep on the "public’s" land just wouldn’t do. Environmental laws were passed that mandated the government to take back the grazing and water rights on public land from the ranchers, in the interest of "protecting" the environment and the protection of endangered or threatened species. The environmentalists were intent, with government’s help, to re-wild America and they didn’t care that it was eliminating one of the vital components of feeding this hungry nation, land and water. To facilitate their goal, the government started dramatically raising allotment fees, or canceling allotment contracts at the end of the 10-year term. Unreserved public land for grazing and water rights was evaporating right under the ranchers’ noses.
Many ranchers have tried to fight back in the courts, only to find the courts were rigged in favor of the government and the environmentalists. The Wayne Hage family, Nevada ranchers, found out the hard way about just how powerful the federal government really is. The Hage story and others that have come up against an intransigent, dictatorial government, was chronicled in a Fox News Special entitled, "Enemies of the State." That special can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67yR-Gj5u70
Over the last several decades, small, local skirmishes, sometimes violent, started erupting in different parts of the West, in response to the government and environmental land grab, which led to the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970’s. The skirmishes started to grow in size which culminated in the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 between 200 heavily-armed BLM agents and a couple of hundred private citizens carrying guns. A shooting war where private citizens would start dying in the desert for all to see at the hands of federal agents, wouldn’t play well with public opinion. The event was widely covered by the news media and the government wisely stood down.
Emboldened by the success of the Bundy Ranch standoff, Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, with the help of a bunch of rag tag armed militia, took over the Malheur Wildlife Preserve in Southeastern Oregon. They came there in defense of Oregon ranchers’ Dwight and Steven Hammond, who ended up in jail on a trumped up arson charge at the hands of the BLM. The Hammond’s had continuous run-ins with the BLM over grazing, water rights and back-burn wildfires. The arson charged appeared to be a way for the BLM to get even.
By now, most of the public knows the Oregon armed standoff has ended. One man was shot dead by law enforcement and the rest have been arrested. Those arrested will probably spend some considerable time in jail. The federal court in which they will be tried, will not be sympathetic, nor will any jury of their peers. It was a lose-lose proposition unless their martyrdom triggers more rural Americans to stand up and be counted. We have described the Oregon standoff on the NARLOwebsite on a dedicated web page HERE.
A story out of Okanogan County, Washington further illustrates the divide between ranchers, farmers, government management of public lands and wildfires. That story can be read at the following link:
http://www.krem.com/news/local/okanogan-county/okanogan-co-landowners-upset-over-land-use-practices/33446424
The battle in Oregon may be over, but the land war is just getting started.
But this isn’t the end of the story in the West. The government may have won this battle in Oregon, but they have only incited greater anger in Western landowners. Where that goes is anyone’s guess, but from our perspective and the reading of the tealeaves, it does not appear to end peacefully.
Many will ask, is the fight against government by rural landowners a righteous fight? After all, the government allegedly owns the land upon which the ranchers’ cattle and sheep are grazing. But isn’t the better question, does the government under the U. S. Constitution, have the right to own, control and manage the land in the first place? In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, the federal government is only supposed to own and control such lands as follows:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
If the literal translation of Clause 17 is true, then Ammon Bnndy, Wayne Hage and all other Western ranchers are right in their demand for the federal government to cede the public land back to the states and cease and desist government’s attack on the ranchers and farmers.
The issue is far from settled and this is what has given rise to the current conflict. When the government was reasonable in managing the unreserved federal lands, everything went fairly smoothly. But when government started clamping down on the ranchers’ legal contract rights to government allotments in the name of environmentalism, the smooth-running relationship between rancher and government evaporated and a land war has ensued.
When in a war, and we are in a war with the government, there are going to be all kinds of twists and turns and skirmishes in that war. The Oregon standoff was just one of the twists and turns. There will be many more to come as the wall between government and the citizens gets higher and higher. It has to come to a head eventually. We can only hope the outcome will be in favor of freedom and the Republic, but it is not a sure thing.
There are millions of Americans that still believe in individual, unalienable rights and want the government to stay the Hell out of their lives. Unfortunately, the government has shoved its ugly head in every "tent" and some of the people are beginning to balk, a totally predictable reaction to rising government oppression. The Oregon armed standoff was a symptom of the people's resistance to that oppression, not a cause.
OBITUARY: We mourn the passing of Justice Scalia, not only for personal reasons but for political reasons as well. He was a stalwart defender of the constitution and the rule of law. May the Republican Senate never confirm an Obama appointee in Obama's last year in office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
BY KATHERINE WEBER , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
February 10, 2016|8:32 pm
Franklin Graham Warns Christians Will 'Lose This Country' If They Don't Vote
(PHOTO: REUTERS/ALLISON SHELLEY)
Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, addresses the crowd at the Festival of Hope, an evangelistic rally held at the national stadium in Port-au-Prince, January 9, 2011.
The Rev. Franklin Graham implored Christians to vote based on their biblical values in South Carolina on Tuesday, warning that they may "lose this country" if they don't participate in the 2016 election.
Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, made his comments while on his latest stop in Columbia, South Carolina, as part of his Decision America Tour.
The evangelical leader told the crowd of over 7,000 that although he is not endorsing any one political candidate, Christians must remember their biblical values when voting in the upcoming election, warning that if believers don't get involved in politics, "we're going to lose this country."
"America is being stripped of biblical heritage," Graham said while speaking at the State House in Columbia this week, adding that he encourages American Christians to "vote for candidates who stand for biblical truth and biblical principles, and are willing to live them."
"I want to get to as many Christians as I can to vote in the next election," the evangelical leader continued. "Our country is going in the wrong direction. And I think some of the politicians that are running have tapped into the anger and the frustration in this country. And I want Christians to know that their vote does count and we've taken God out of government, schools and everything else and we need to get God back into it."
"Our society is unraveling and it's coming apart," Graham added.
The evangelist's latest stop in South Carolina comes ahead of the state's presidential primary set to take place on February 20. Graham has already stopped in Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of their recent Caucus and primary votes, respectively.
The religious leader echoed a similar sentiment on his recent visit to Georgia, where he encouraged an audience in Atlanta to fight against society's use of political correctness.
"You try to lift up the name of Christ in any public form, and what happens? The lawyers come and say 'we're gonna sue you.' And so people begin to back up; people go 'I don't want get sued.' Let me tell you: Get sued. Get sued," Graham told the crowd.When speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, in January, Graham said he has "zero hope" for either political party, instead telling Christians that they must rely on their own moral conscience to make the right decision for the country.
"I have no hope in the Democratic Party. I have zero hope in the Republican Party [...] My only hope is in the body of Christ," Graham told the crowd of over 2,000.
On the Decision America website, Graham states that his goal with his nationwide tour is to "challenge Christians to live out their faith at home, in public and at the ballot box," adding that he will also "share the Gospel" during his visits.
Although Graham has not officially endorsed any political candidate, he did applaud the recent results of the Iowa Caucus on social media, focusing on the large amount of evangelicals who turned out to cast their vote.
"The polls show that more evangelical Christians came out to vote last night than in 2008 or 2012. I hope that this will be true for both the Democratic and Republican parties and spread to every state," Graham posted on Twitter earlier this month.
"If men and women who love God and fear Him will stand up and let their voices be heard at the ballot box, it will make a difference in our country. God bless America!" Graham added.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-warns-christians-will-lose-this-country-if-they-dont-vote-157335/#86qKtbeEAhplLSd5.99
Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, addresses the crowd at the Festival of Hope, an evangelistic rally held at the national stadium in Port-au-Prince, January 9, 2011.
The Rev. Franklin Graham implored Christians to vote based on their biblical values in South Carolina on Tuesday, warning that they may "lose this country" if they don't participate in the 2016 election.
Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, made his comments while on his latest stop in Columbia, South Carolina, as part of his Decision America Tour.
The evangelical leader told the crowd of over 7,000 that although he is not endorsing any one political candidate, Christians must remember their biblical values when voting in the upcoming election, warning that if believers don't get involved in politics, "we're going to lose this country."
"America is being stripped of biblical heritage," Graham said while speaking at the State House in Columbia this week, adding that he encourages American Christians to "vote for candidates who stand for biblical truth and biblical principles, and are willing to live them."
"I want to get to as many Christians as I can to vote in the next election," the evangelical leader continued. "Our country is going in the wrong direction. And I think some of the politicians that are running have tapped into the anger and the frustration in this country. And I want Christians to know that their vote does count and we've taken God out of government, schools and everything else and we need to get God back into it."
"Our society is unraveling and it's coming apart," Graham added.
The evangelist's latest stop in South Carolina comes ahead of the state's presidential primary set to take place on February 20. Graham has already stopped in Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of their recent Caucus and primary votes, respectively.
The religious leader echoed a similar sentiment on his recent visit to Georgia, where he encouraged an audience in Atlanta to fight against society's use of political correctness.
"You try to lift up the name of Christ in any public form, and what happens? The lawyers come and say 'we're gonna sue you.' And so people begin to back up; people go 'I don't want get sued.' Let me tell you: Get sued. Get sued," Graham told the crowd.When speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, in January, Graham said he has "zero hope" for either political party, instead telling Christians that they must rely on their own moral conscience to make the right decision for the country.
"I have no hope in the Democratic Party. I have zero hope in the Republican Party [...] My only hope is in the body of Christ," Graham told the crowd of over 2,000.
On the Decision America website, Graham states that his goal with his nationwide tour is to "challenge Christians to live out their faith at home, in public and at the ballot box," adding that he will also "share the Gospel" during his visits.
Although Graham has not officially endorsed any political candidate, he did applaud the recent results of the Iowa Caucus on social media, focusing on the large amount of evangelicals who turned out to cast their vote.
"The polls show that more evangelical Christians came out to vote last night than in 2008 or 2012. I hope that this will be true for both the Democratic and Republican parties and spread to every state," Graham posted on Twitter earlier this month.
"If men and women who love God and fear Him will stand up and let their voices be heard at the ballot box, it will make a difference in our country. God bless America!" Graham added.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-warns-christians-will-lose-this-country-if-they-dont-vote-157335/#86qKtbeEAhplLSd5.99
RUN AWAY, SCHMUN AWAY
Judge Brennan has advocated an Article V amendatory constitutional convention since 1982. See his Law Review article at:www.returntophiladelphia.com
Source; http://www.oldjudge.blogspot.com/
oldjudgesays
Wednesday, February 10, 2016RUN AWAY, SCHMUN AWAYNow that the Brennan Center and the John Birch Society have joined to wring their hands in terror over the possibility of an Article V Amendatory Constitutional Convention, it appears that the danger of a “Run Away” convention rivals the specter of an ISIS invasion on the list of horrors that should be keeping us all awake at night.
We are invited, nay, encouraged, to fret over the possibility that the ’special interests’ the super PACs, Wall Street and whatever other political bugaboo lights your worry lamp will surely take over the convention and use the occasion to wipe out what little may remain of our treasured life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The truly sad part of all this is the fact that a good many intelligent and well meaning Americans, despite being convinced of the need for sundry constitutional reforms, are persuaded that the convention opponents are right, and so they whittle down their convention demands to accommodate the nay sayers.
What we have then – unhappily-- is a bevy of busy activists scurrying about, trying to sell the state legislatures on a smorgasbord of one issue petitions.
The strangest thing of all is the fact that these good people, although they are competing for a convention, have eschewed the rhetoric of competitors and have adopted the argument that what America really needs is not a convention to propose amendments (in the plural, as written in the constitution) but a whole series of conventions, each one charged with proposing one and only one amendment.
I have to confess that they do compete in one respect. They each have a plan to protect the American people from the admittedly real, however remote, possibility that even their ‘one issue’ assembly might, just possibly, get out of hand, and try to accomplish more good work than the proponents wanted.
It is possible. Even a one issue, one amendment, one day, one vote, ‘quickie’ convention might just go bananas and start trying to fix the whole government. A convention is, after all, a room full of people – human beings – and we all know how unpredictable human beings can be.
So now we have state legislatures, even before there is any probability of a convention in the near term, adopting complex, punitive statutes threatening convention delegates with imprisonment if they commit the crime of actually deliberating in common with other delegates.
The argument advanced by amendment proponents in the state capitals is that the state legislatures, in petitioning for a convention, actually control the whole convention process. They argue that the states founded the nation, the states adopted the constitution and the states are in charge of amending it.
Wrong. The states didn’t adopt the constitution. The people did. Certainly, the people who wrote and adopted the constitution were the people of the States. Until the constitution was adopted, there were no “people of the United States of America.” But once the constitution was ratified, the people of the States became ALSO, the people of the United States of America.
That’s what dual sovereignty, dual citizenship entails. We are the people of Texas, and Tennessee, Kansas and Kentucky, but we are also the people of the United States of America.
An Article V convention must represent the people of each State and the people of the United States. If it truly does, the people are not going to run away from themselves.
Posted by Thomas E. Brennan at 1:01 PM 1 comment: Wednesday, February 3, 2016BRENNAN V BRENNANIn 1970, when I was Chief Justice of Michigan, I met President Richard Nixon at a seminar in Colorado. He looked at my name tag, and asked me if I was related to Mr. Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court.
“No, Mr. President,” I answered. “I am not related to Justice Brennan by consanguinity, affinity or philosophy.” Nixon gave me a warm handshake and a big smile.
William J. Brennan was an effective leader of the activist, progressive wing of the nation’s highest court. After he died, his devotees created the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. The Center is an avowed advocate of judicial activism. Its web site says it this way:
“we lead an ambitious new initiative to develop and articulate a compelling progressive jurisprudence for the 21st century”.
Furthering this goal, the Brennan Center has joined with Common Cause, and several other activist and progressive organizations to rail against the idea of an Article V Amendatory Constitutional Convention.
Like their antithesis at the other end of the political spectrum, the John Birch Society and The Eagle Forum, the Brennan Center and their liberal cohorts paint a scary picture of a dictatorial cadre of constitutional spoilers hell bent on depriving Americans of their God given and constitutionally recognized rights.
So there it is. Both sides of the aisle. All the opinion makers, the think tankers, the Rightees and the Leftees. They all love our wonderful constitution. They call it sacred. They honor it. The support it, Nay, they literally worship the paper it is written on.
All except Article V. All except the notion of letting the people of the United States, who wrote and ratified the Constitution, assemble in convention and propose amendments.
The people are not to be trusted, they say. Shop keepers, truck drivers, housewives, students, for heaven’s sake, what do they know about the principles and powers of government which “to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” as Thomas Jefferson wrote.
They insist that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were written by giants, prophets, geniuses, saints, and they claim that there is no one living today smart enough, good enough, wise enough, prescient enough to even discuss amending the constitution, much less actually propose an amendment.
The ramrod argument of the nay sayers always comes down to something like this: The constitution doesn’t tell us how the convention is to be organized. Who will be the delegates? How will they be chosen? Who will make the convention rules? Who will decide on the agenda?
And that always leads to criticism of the various initiatives seeking to get Congress to call a convention. Who are they? Who’s really behind it? What are they up to? Which, of course, then segues over to a chorus of insinuations, speculations and accusations.
Politics as usual.
In the midst of it all, I confess to being the lesser Justice Brennan, neither conservative nor liberal. Just an old fashioned American populist who believes that a free people are competent to govern themselves, and that our Constitution is the Peoples Charter. The people wrote it and adopted it. The people are competent to amend it.
Which is why I founded Convention USA. Which Is why I have spent countless hours and dollars creating a real live, honest-to-God assembly of representatives of the American People on the Internet. Six thousand one hundred sixty-six delegates, one for every 50,000 people in the nation, drawn from every county in the fifty states and chosen in non partisan elections.
The establishment folks, the professional, academic, political, corporate and organizational elite can ignore us. They can ridicule and they can laugh. But they can’t stop patriotic citizens from registering as delegates at:
www.conventionusa.org
Source; http://www.oldjudge.blogspot.com/
oldjudgesays
Wednesday, February 10, 2016RUN AWAY, SCHMUN AWAYNow that the Brennan Center and the John Birch Society have joined to wring their hands in terror over the possibility of an Article V Amendatory Constitutional Convention, it appears that the danger of a “Run Away” convention rivals the specter of an ISIS invasion on the list of horrors that should be keeping us all awake at night.
We are invited, nay, encouraged, to fret over the possibility that the ’special interests’ the super PACs, Wall Street and whatever other political bugaboo lights your worry lamp will surely take over the convention and use the occasion to wipe out what little may remain of our treasured life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The truly sad part of all this is the fact that a good many intelligent and well meaning Americans, despite being convinced of the need for sundry constitutional reforms, are persuaded that the convention opponents are right, and so they whittle down their convention demands to accommodate the nay sayers.
What we have then – unhappily-- is a bevy of busy activists scurrying about, trying to sell the state legislatures on a smorgasbord of one issue petitions.
The strangest thing of all is the fact that these good people, although they are competing for a convention, have eschewed the rhetoric of competitors and have adopted the argument that what America really needs is not a convention to propose amendments (in the plural, as written in the constitution) but a whole series of conventions, each one charged with proposing one and only one amendment.
I have to confess that they do compete in one respect. They each have a plan to protect the American people from the admittedly real, however remote, possibility that even their ‘one issue’ assembly might, just possibly, get out of hand, and try to accomplish more good work than the proponents wanted.
It is possible. Even a one issue, one amendment, one day, one vote, ‘quickie’ convention might just go bananas and start trying to fix the whole government. A convention is, after all, a room full of people – human beings – and we all know how unpredictable human beings can be.
So now we have state legislatures, even before there is any probability of a convention in the near term, adopting complex, punitive statutes threatening convention delegates with imprisonment if they commit the crime of actually deliberating in common with other delegates.
The argument advanced by amendment proponents in the state capitals is that the state legislatures, in petitioning for a convention, actually control the whole convention process. They argue that the states founded the nation, the states adopted the constitution and the states are in charge of amending it.
Wrong. The states didn’t adopt the constitution. The people did. Certainly, the people who wrote and adopted the constitution were the people of the States. Until the constitution was adopted, there were no “people of the United States of America.” But once the constitution was ratified, the people of the States became ALSO, the people of the United States of America.
That’s what dual sovereignty, dual citizenship entails. We are the people of Texas, and Tennessee, Kansas and Kentucky, but we are also the people of the United States of America.
An Article V convention must represent the people of each State and the people of the United States. If it truly does, the people are not going to run away from themselves.
Posted by Thomas E. Brennan at 1:01 PM 1 comment: Wednesday, February 3, 2016BRENNAN V BRENNANIn 1970, when I was Chief Justice of Michigan, I met President Richard Nixon at a seminar in Colorado. He looked at my name tag, and asked me if I was related to Mr. Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court.
“No, Mr. President,” I answered. “I am not related to Justice Brennan by consanguinity, affinity or philosophy.” Nixon gave me a warm handshake and a big smile.
William J. Brennan was an effective leader of the activist, progressive wing of the nation’s highest court. After he died, his devotees created the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. The Center is an avowed advocate of judicial activism. Its web site says it this way:
“we lead an ambitious new initiative to develop and articulate a compelling progressive jurisprudence for the 21st century”.
Furthering this goal, the Brennan Center has joined with Common Cause, and several other activist and progressive organizations to rail against the idea of an Article V Amendatory Constitutional Convention.
Like their antithesis at the other end of the political spectrum, the John Birch Society and The Eagle Forum, the Brennan Center and their liberal cohorts paint a scary picture of a dictatorial cadre of constitutional spoilers hell bent on depriving Americans of their God given and constitutionally recognized rights.
So there it is. Both sides of the aisle. All the opinion makers, the think tankers, the Rightees and the Leftees. They all love our wonderful constitution. They call it sacred. They honor it. The support it, Nay, they literally worship the paper it is written on.
All except Article V. All except the notion of letting the people of the United States, who wrote and ratified the Constitution, assemble in convention and propose amendments.
The people are not to be trusted, they say. Shop keepers, truck drivers, housewives, students, for heaven’s sake, what do they know about the principles and powers of government which “to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” as Thomas Jefferson wrote.
They insist that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were written by giants, prophets, geniuses, saints, and they claim that there is no one living today smart enough, good enough, wise enough, prescient enough to even discuss amending the constitution, much less actually propose an amendment.
The ramrod argument of the nay sayers always comes down to something like this: The constitution doesn’t tell us how the convention is to be organized. Who will be the delegates? How will they be chosen? Who will make the convention rules? Who will decide on the agenda?
And that always leads to criticism of the various initiatives seeking to get Congress to call a convention. Who are they? Who’s really behind it? What are they up to? Which, of course, then segues over to a chorus of insinuations, speculations and accusations.
Politics as usual.
In the midst of it all, I confess to being the lesser Justice Brennan, neither conservative nor liberal. Just an old fashioned American populist who believes that a free people are competent to govern themselves, and that our Constitution is the Peoples Charter. The people wrote it and adopted it. The people are competent to amend it.
Which is why I founded Convention USA. Which Is why I have spent countless hours and dollars creating a real live, honest-to-God assembly of representatives of the American People on the Internet. Six thousand one hundred sixty-six delegates, one for every 50,000 people in the nation, drawn from every county in the fifty states and chosen in non partisan elections.
The establishment folks, the professional, academic, political, corporate and organizational elite can ignore us. They can ridicule and they can laugh. But they can’t stop patriotic citizens from registering as delegates at:
www.conventionusa.org
Why we need an Article V, States petitioned for, Amendment Proposal Convention
Can I put it any clearer than this?
The Progressive Socialist Faction has first used Soviet Russia to be the test bed to move against the American Republic through subversive actions and placing subversive elements within our Educational structures. They complemented this with obstructive minorities and small but highly organized groups using actions were to negate, tear down, and destroy every good thing about our free Republic. Things considered our finest things. Love, Truth, Loyalty, Altruism, Decency, Honor, Integrity, Self Discipline, Work Ethic, Reverence, Respect, and most of all, Our Compassion for those in need.
They use our desire to help the less fortunate for their own ends not actually caring about helping anyone, just moving their agendas forward. They turned all these things against us by tweaking them to their poisonous agendas so they could chastise us from a false moral high ground. They used them against the naivety of the youth of our nation while twisting their minds and morals all out of things that were up to that point the way people saw things as righteous, honorable and commendable. They control most of the main Stream Media too.
They use their mantra of hate, disguised as love and caring for people and things, to bring about their twisted ends. They are still doing it with great aplomb and success even as you read this Treatise. The thing we need to do immediately, is to find a way to expose the ones behind this travesty to the public, and expose them in such a way that they will not be able to counter it with their spin and lies.
If you think I do not know of what I speak, look at the Vice, Drugs, Greed, Extortion, Religion, and Superstition that is being plied every day under the guise of law, both Canonical and Secular, or in the so called entertainment programs they have unleashed. Even the cartoons for our kids are turning around of everything we once called good into what we used to call evil, and that same evil, into what is now presented as good by them.
The hidden leaders work through echelon upon echelon of lower lackeys and well meaning useful idiots, so they may remain perfectly safe from Public Scrutiny, and free of possible retaliation for what they are doing to destroy us. These are the ones who wish to eradicate civilizations protocols as we know them, and supplant them with a morally twisted iron fisted Oligarchy, that humanity will not be able to break away from for countless generations if ever. These hidden ones are the evil incarnate masters we must strive to uncover and hold to the light of day.
Today, the Conservatives, and I mean the true Conservatives not the extreme right wingers with as bad of an agenda for America as the ultra left's is, are simply attempting to fulfill the Founders vision of an America dedicated to the principles expressed by the Declaration of Independence, codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and further stated in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The American People are fighting for an Ideal; They want and deserve a peaceful,harmonious, Liberty-living civilization steeped in individual freedoms and Equality for ALL.
It's Up To Us To Stop The Progressive Faction Cold Before they destroy everything America used to stand for prior to their infiltration into the body politic.
You can see at every turn where the Progressive Socialists who are now in temporary control have twisted those Ideals into something that pushes the opposite giving us Social Justice instead of Equal Justice,Monopolies instead of Free Enterprise, Selective Enforcement of Laws instead of Impartial Enforcement of those laws. The progressive/socialists stress Dependence on Government instead of Self Reliance, Survival through Welfare Handouts instead of a Work Ethic, Secular Humanism instead of belief in Natures God. They promote and support Barbaric Beliefs, Rites and Practices instead of benign Judeo-Christian tenets and beliefs the Country was based on.
The Progressive/Socialists over the last 150 years have even twisted the Constitution out of what was intended by the founders into something that now serves their agenda to turn us into something that can be easily manipulated under the guise of laws they have instituted to obliterate our Liberties and Freedoms. I cite three toxic Amendments that have either been twisted out of their original intent into something that only serves the elites, or have been deliberately set up to implement hidden intent or remove the checks and balances the Founders placed within the Constitution proper.
Lets start with the vaunted 14th Amendment. the Progressive faction has said so many times that it is responsible for defining citizenship. That is what the progressives have twisted it to mean. Originally it was only intended to insure the Freed Slaves were not stripped of their Citizenship and Voting rights they gained with the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Nothing more was intended.
See; http://www.14thamendment.us/ for full disclosure and timelines on when and how it was changed in meaning by SCOTUS without being legislated through Congress as the Constitution stipulates. In fact SCOTUS reversed the intent and defied the original meaning with the Anchor Baby ruling. Also and even more damaging was the three words that changed the power flow and control from the People to the States to the Federal Government around to the Federal Government now being Constitutionally able to dictate to the States and the People. Those words were; "NO STATE SHALL".
This in effect also negated the provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments because with the 14th the Federal Government could legally supersede any State law and block any attempt at Nullification by a State on Federal Laws. this has been proven by every Nullification case brought before the SCOTUS which has always found in favor of the Federal Government instead of the State. To reverse this, will take Repealing the 14th through an Article V State petitioned for amendment proposal convention. The fear mongers in Government who will lose their stolen power will try and convince the uninformed public that the public will lose their rights if this happens. That will be and is a bald faced LIE and Deliberate Mis-Direction. Other parts of the Constitution preserve those rights the Government lackeys say will be taken away.
The 16th amendment was only pushed after the progressive faction had it's legislation struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional and going against the provision in the Constitution mandating Apportioned taxation. Based on what they have done with it, the original intent of the Elitist/Progressives meant it to help grow the Federal government into the monster it is today. there is even some circumstantial evidence that it was not properly ratified but only declared as ratified by the Secretary of State Knox.
The House of Representatives were given the purse strings to keep the Federal Government in check but the influx of massive amounts of money because of the 16th had the effect of a narcotic like drug on the sensibilities of those representatives sparking ever more Greed and corruption.
The 17th was the last string in the Progressives bow to take away the last barrier the States had to even moderately keep the Federal Government in check. They even started a propaganda campaign to make the people think that their Senators were supposed to represent them directly and the public should directly elect them. Not so. The Senators were intended to only Represent the States and were under the direct control of their State Legislatures and were responsible only to them not to their respective political parties or directly to the people. That was called "The Great Compromise" or sometimes "The Connecticut Compromise".
Up until the 17th was ratified, the State Legislatures had the right to recall any Senator at any time if they did not properly represent their State against the Federal Government. Now, the Senators are only responsible to their respective party's agendas, not to the States, and certainly not to the People who elected them. The Constitutionally approved and designated Representatives of the People are the members of the House, and that's why the House has control of the purse strings.
If we ever want to get back what we lost through the connivance of the various Progressive Congresses and their self serving amendments, we MUST REPEAL those Three Toxic Amendments
These are my Carefully Considered Views
The Tradesman
The Progressive Socialist Faction has first used Soviet Russia to be the test bed to move against the American Republic through subversive actions and placing subversive elements within our Educational structures. They complemented this with obstructive minorities and small but highly organized groups using actions were to negate, tear down, and destroy every good thing about our free Republic. Things considered our finest things. Love, Truth, Loyalty, Altruism, Decency, Honor, Integrity, Self Discipline, Work Ethic, Reverence, Respect, and most of all, Our Compassion for those in need.
They use our desire to help the less fortunate for their own ends not actually caring about helping anyone, just moving their agendas forward. They turned all these things against us by tweaking them to their poisonous agendas so they could chastise us from a false moral high ground. They used them against the naivety of the youth of our nation while twisting their minds and morals all out of things that were up to that point the way people saw things as righteous, honorable and commendable. They control most of the main Stream Media too.
They use their mantra of hate, disguised as love and caring for people and things, to bring about their twisted ends. They are still doing it with great aplomb and success even as you read this Treatise. The thing we need to do immediately, is to find a way to expose the ones behind this travesty to the public, and expose them in such a way that they will not be able to counter it with their spin and lies.
If you think I do not know of what I speak, look at the Vice, Drugs, Greed, Extortion, Religion, and Superstition that is being plied every day under the guise of law, both Canonical and Secular, or in the so called entertainment programs they have unleashed. Even the cartoons for our kids are turning around of everything we once called good into what we used to call evil, and that same evil, into what is now presented as good by them.
The hidden leaders work through echelon upon echelon of lower lackeys and well meaning useful idiots, so they may remain perfectly safe from Public Scrutiny, and free of possible retaliation for what they are doing to destroy us. These are the ones who wish to eradicate civilizations protocols as we know them, and supplant them with a morally twisted iron fisted Oligarchy, that humanity will not be able to break away from for countless generations if ever. These hidden ones are the evil incarnate masters we must strive to uncover and hold to the light of day.
Today, the Conservatives, and I mean the true Conservatives not the extreme right wingers with as bad of an agenda for America as the ultra left's is, are simply attempting to fulfill the Founders vision of an America dedicated to the principles expressed by the Declaration of Independence, codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and further stated in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The American People are fighting for an Ideal; They want and deserve a peaceful,harmonious, Liberty-living civilization steeped in individual freedoms and Equality for ALL.
It's Up To Us To Stop The Progressive Faction Cold Before they destroy everything America used to stand for prior to their infiltration into the body politic.
You can see at every turn where the Progressive Socialists who are now in temporary control have twisted those Ideals into something that pushes the opposite giving us Social Justice instead of Equal Justice,Monopolies instead of Free Enterprise, Selective Enforcement of Laws instead of Impartial Enforcement of those laws. The progressive/socialists stress Dependence on Government instead of Self Reliance, Survival through Welfare Handouts instead of a Work Ethic, Secular Humanism instead of belief in Natures God. They promote and support Barbaric Beliefs, Rites and Practices instead of benign Judeo-Christian tenets and beliefs the Country was based on.
The Progressive/Socialists over the last 150 years have even twisted the Constitution out of what was intended by the founders into something that now serves their agenda to turn us into something that can be easily manipulated under the guise of laws they have instituted to obliterate our Liberties and Freedoms. I cite three toxic Amendments that have either been twisted out of their original intent into something that only serves the elites, or have been deliberately set up to implement hidden intent or remove the checks and balances the Founders placed within the Constitution proper.
Lets start with the vaunted 14th Amendment. the Progressive faction has said so many times that it is responsible for defining citizenship. That is what the progressives have twisted it to mean. Originally it was only intended to insure the Freed Slaves were not stripped of their Citizenship and Voting rights they gained with the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Nothing more was intended.
See; http://www.14thamendment.us/ for full disclosure and timelines on when and how it was changed in meaning by SCOTUS without being legislated through Congress as the Constitution stipulates. In fact SCOTUS reversed the intent and defied the original meaning with the Anchor Baby ruling. Also and even more damaging was the three words that changed the power flow and control from the People to the States to the Federal Government around to the Federal Government now being Constitutionally able to dictate to the States and the People. Those words were; "NO STATE SHALL".
This in effect also negated the provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments because with the 14th the Federal Government could legally supersede any State law and block any attempt at Nullification by a State on Federal Laws. this has been proven by every Nullification case brought before the SCOTUS which has always found in favor of the Federal Government instead of the State. To reverse this, will take Repealing the 14th through an Article V State petitioned for amendment proposal convention. The fear mongers in Government who will lose their stolen power will try and convince the uninformed public that the public will lose their rights if this happens. That will be and is a bald faced LIE and Deliberate Mis-Direction. Other parts of the Constitution preserve those rights the Government lackeys say will be taken away.
The 16th amendment was only pushed after the progressive faction had it's legislation struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional and going against the provision in the Constitution mandating Apportioned taxation. Based on what they have done with it, the original intent of the Elitist/Progressives meant it to help grow the Federal government into the monster it is today. there is even some circumstantial evidence that it was not properly ratified but only declared as ratified by the Secretary of State Knox.
The House of Representatives were given the purse strings to keep the Federal Government in check but the influx of massive amounts of money because of the 16th had the effect of a narcotic like drug on the sensibilities of those representatives sparking ever more Greed and corruption.
The 17th was the last string in the Progressives bow to take away the last barrier the States had to even moderately keep the Federal Government in check. They even started a propaganda campaign to make the people think that their Senators were supposed to represent them directly and the public should directly elect them. Not so. The Senators were intended to only Represent the States and were under the direct control of their State Legislatures and were responsible only to them not to their respective political parties or directly to the people. That was called "The Great Compromise" or sometimes "The Connecticut Compromise".
Up until the 17th was ratified, the State Legislatures had the right to recall any Senator at any time if they did not properly represent their State against the Federal Government. Now, the Senators are only responsible to their respective party's agendas, not to the States, and certainly not to the People who elected them. The Constitutionally approved and designated Representatives of the People are the members of the House, and that's why the House has control of the purse strings.
If we ever want to get back what we lost through the connivance of the various Progressive Congresses and their self serving amendments, we MUST REPEAL those Three Toxic Amendments
These are my Carefully Considered Views
The Tradesman
The Original Meaning of “Natural Born”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712485The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born'
Michael D. Ramsey
University of San Diego School of Law
January 7, 2016
The Original Meaning of “Natural Born” Michael D. Ramsey* Modern conventional wisdom generally holds that the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause1 includes anyone made a U.S. citizen at birth by U.S. statutes or the Constitution.2 A U.S. statute makes most people born outside the United States to at least one U.S. citizen parent citizens at birth;3 thus people in this category – along with those born within the United States and thus citizens under the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment – are thought to be eligible. According to a recent essay by two prominent commentators, “the relevant materials clearly indicate … that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.”4 But that conventional wisdom rests on surprisingly thin scholarly foundations and faces daunting textual and historical challenges. If anyone born a U.S. citizen is eligible to the presidency, the word “natural” in the eligibility clause is superfluous. To give it meaning, there should be some “born” citizens who are not “natural born.” Further, in general in eighteenth-century legal language, natural meant the opposite of “provided by statute.” Natural law was the opposite of positive law; natural rights were rights that predated codification. The most obvious meaning of “natural born Citizen” thus is not a person who claims citizenship from a statute, but rather a person whose citizenship comes from the natural state of things. Moreover, despite the confident ring of the conventional wisdom, there are essential no sustained scholarly defenses of it. Its leading recent affirmation is only four pages long.5 To the contrary, the few scholarly articles to address the clause have found it mysterious and ambiguous.6 *Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law and Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego Law School. Thanks to Randy Barnett, Richard Izquierdo, Michael Rappaport, Thomas Lee, Lawrence Solum and the participants in the Georgetown Law Center constitutional colloquium for helpful comments. The author was born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents. 1 U.S. CONST. Art. II, Sec. 1. 2 See JACK MESKELL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT AND THE “NATURAL BORN” CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT (Congressional Research Service 2011), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf; see id. at 50 (the “majority of scholarship on the subject” holds that birth abroad to at least one citizen parent is sufficient for natural born citizen status). 3 Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended, § 301, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. 4 Paul Clement & Neal Katyal, On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” 128 HARV. L. REV. F. 161 (2015) (discussing presidential candidate Ted Cruz). See also AKHIL AMAR, AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION: A BIOGRAPHY 164-66 (2005) (equating “natural born Citizen” with “citizen at the time of his birth.” 5 See Clement & Katyal, supra note 4. Clement and Katyal principally rely on eighteenth-century British statutes, which, they say, “provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire with “natural born Subjects…” Id. at 1. But as explained below, see infra Part II, these statutes only applied to persons whose fathers (or paternal grandfathers) were British subjects. Modern U.S. law allows persons born abroad to claim birthright U.S. citizenship through their mothers as well. 6 See, e.g., Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 22 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf, updated
The lack of firm support for the conventional view has potentially serious consequences, even to the point of constitutional crisis. In an era of globalization, more Americans are likely to have children overseas who aspire to the nation’s highest office. One presidential nominee in 2008 was born in the Canal Zone7 while the other was rumored (falsely) to have been born in Kenya. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, currently seeking the Republican Party nomination for President, was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-citizen father.8 It is not unlikely that in our era a person will be elected who is arguably not eligible. A thorough investigation of the eligibility clause’s original meaning seems not merely an intriguing academic exercise but a practical necessity. That is particularly true because at least two strong challenges to the conventional wisdom have emerged in popular literature, arguing for substantially narrower interpretations. One of these contends – consistent with the ordinary meaning of “natural” – that only persons born within the United States are “natural” citizens; others are mere statutory citizens, and thus ineligible to the presidency. A second contends that the framers’ idea of “natural born” citizenship arose from the work of the great Swiss writer Emer de Vattel, whose treatise on the law of nations was enormously influential at the founding. 9 Vattel adopted the common European view, derived from Roman law, of citizenship by inheritance rather than birth: “natural” citizenship was passed from father to child, regardless of the child’s place of birth. In this view, then, even some people born in the United States would not be eligible to be President, while some born overseas (but not all those made citizens by modern law) would be. version available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885 (revised 2010). Other leading scholarship on the clause emphasizes the difficulty of interpreting it: Malinda Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 BYU L. REV. 927 (2005); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 YALE L.J. 881 (1988); Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 PRESID. STUD. Q. 383 (1987); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MARYLAND L. REV. 1 (1968). While modern published scholarship is scarce, several recent online publications have the character, depth and significance of law review articles, including William Jacobson, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, LEGAL INSURRECTION, Sept. 3, 2013, available at http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ (also finding the clause to be ambiguous). 7 Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 1 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.pdf.; Stephen E. Sachs, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 49 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/sachs.pdf; Peter J. Spiro, McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 42 (2008);
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/spiro.pdf 8 See Angie Drobnic Holan, Is Ted Cruz, Born in Canada, Eligible to Run for President?, POLITIFACT, August 20, 2013, available at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-borncanada-eligible-run-president/ 9 EMER DE VATTEL, DROIT DES GENS [THE LAW OF NATIONS] (1758).
This article concludes that the conventional view is probably correct as a matter of the Constitution’s original meaning, but that the argument is complicated and not entirely free from doubt. As suggested above, the text seems to point in the opposite direction, toward an idea of “natural” citizenship arising from some connection to the nation apart from mere statutory status. The drafting and ratifying history is unhelpful, as the clause was rarely discussed, and only in general terms. Similarly, post-ratification discussions are inconclusive, or appear to point in different directions. On the basis of the text and the most frequently consulted founding-era sources, the phrase appears to refer to a “natural” relationship to the nation that was incompletely articulated, or perhaps incompletely understood. One might be tempted to stop there and declare the clause fatally ambiguous.10 This article argues, however, that meaning can be found in pre-constitutional sources, chiefly in the idea of “natural born subjects” in English law. In brief, traditional English law reflected an idea of “natural” birth within the allegiance of the king, based only on birth within the king’s territory (with minor exceptions). These people were called “natural born subjects.” Since the late seventeenth century, however, parliament had extended “natural born subject” status to certain persons born abroad to English parents. Crucially, parliament did not merely give these persons the rights of natural born subjects; it declared them to be natural born subjects. As a result, by the late eighteenth century, in English law the phrase “natural born” – contrary to its traditional meaning – had come to include those given subject status at birth by statute. This article further argues that this understanding of “natural born” is the one most likely recognized by the Constitution’s framers. The relevant features of English law were known in America through Blackstone’s widely read treatise.11 Founding era and post-founding sources demonstrate that American citizenship law was strongly influenced by its English predecessor; although American commentators did not make clear their precise understanding of “natural born,” the most likely meaning seems to be the meaning it had in English law. This understanding is strongly reinforced by the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”12 The English statutes declaring certain categories of people to be natural born, even if not born in England, 10 That is, ambiguous in its application to certain categories of people. See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 5-6 (noting that most people are unambiguously covered or not covered by the clause, but finding that the clause might be ambiguous as to those with some, but not complete, connection to the United States at birth). The Fourteenth Amendment is not immediately relevant to the meaning of the eligibility clause. It was ratified much later (in 1868) and does not purport to address the meaning of “natural born” citizen or the scope of presidential eligibility. Although it establishes a class of people whose birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution and thus cannot be altered by statute, it does not preclude additional classes of people being given birthright citizenship by statute, and Congress has consistently recognized citizenship at birth beyond the constitutional minimum of the Amendment. On its own, the Fourteenth Amendment neither assures that everyone within its protection is “natural born” nor excludes those outside its protection from being “natural born.” 11 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1765). 12 U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4.
Were called naturalization acts, and thus were understood as exercises of parliament’s naturalization power. Absent indications to the contrary, the best guide to the scope of Congress’ naturalization power is the scope of parliament’s naturalization power. Recovering this meaning highlights the underappreciated connection between the Article II’s eligibility clause and Article I’s naturalization clause. As English practice makes clear, the power granted by the latter includes (within limits) the power to define the meaning of the former. The last point is crucial, because eighteenth-century English statutes did not recognize all persons born abroad with English parents to be natural born subjects; they recognized such a status for persons whose fathers (and, after 1778, paternal grandfathers) were English subjects.13 Modern U.S. law also grants citizenship at birth to most persons (such as Senator Cruz) born abroad with U.S. citizen mothers but not U.S. citizen fathers.14 If people in Senator Cruz’s category are eligible to the presidency, it cannot be because the American framers adopted the English rule in effect at the time of the founding. Rather, it is because the Framers conveyed to Congress, through the naturalization clause, the power to define “natural” birth. The ensuing discussion proceeds as follows. Part I considers the eligibility clause’s text and drafting history, finding that little conclusive can be found within it. Part II explores the legal background of the phrase “natural born,” particularly its definition in English common law, English statutory law, and the law-of-nations theory of Vattel. Part III argues that the weight of available evidence shows the founding generation in America to have been most strongly influenced by English law rather than Vattel, and by the whole of English law rather than just its common law antecedents. Part IV concludes that the most likely meaning of the eligibility clause combined with the naturalization clause is that they adopted the English practice of a core common law definition subject to modification by statute – a reading that confirms the modern understanding of eligibility. I. The Constitution’s Text and Drafting History The presidential eligibility clause provides: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.15 The clause thus creates two categories of eligible citizens (albeit only one relevant in modern times): (1) persons who are natural born citizens, and (2) persons who were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Some interpreters have 13 See infra, part II. 14 Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended, § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. 15 U.S. CONST. Art. II, §1.
Purported to be confused by the comma after “United States,” which under modern grammatical conventions indicates that the phrase “at the Adoption of this Constitution” modifies both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” However this confusion seems misguided. As other sections of the Constitution indicate, the framers had different and looser rules regarding comma placement than we do; moreover, attaching significance to the comma creates a manifestly absurd result – namely, that no person born after the adoption of the Constitution would be eligible to be President. That leaves the question of the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” According to a comprehensive study by the Congressional Research Service, the phrase means any person who is a U.S. citizen by birth, including those whose citizenship is granted by statute. 16 This broad view, however, is in substantial tension with the clause’s text on two grounds. First, reading the clause in this way violates the surplusage canon, which holds that in textual interpretation all words in a text should be given meaning.17 If all persons who are born citizens are eligible, the word “natural” has no effect. The framers could as well have written “No person except a born Citizen” (or perhaps “No person except one born a Citizen”) shall be eligible. An interpretation of the clause should therefore strive to find some meaning of the word natural.18 Second, giving “natural” its ordinary legal meaning suggests the exact opposite of the conventional conclusion regarding citizenship derived from statutes. In eighteenthcentury legal language “natural” meant arising from the nature of things19 – a usage reflected, for example, in natural law (as opposed to statutory law) and natural rights (as opposed to statutory rights). Under this common meaning of natural, “natural” citizenship should be distinct from – not coextensive with – statutory citizenship. Neither of these observations provides direct evidence of the phrase’s meaning, but they do suggest that the modern assumed meaning, at minimum, requires further explanation and support. On its face, the eligibility clause does not make all born citizens eligible to the Presidency. The critical question is the eighteenth-century understanding of “natural” born. 16 MESKELL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 6, at 50. 17 ANTONIN SCALIA AND BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 174-75 (2012). 18 Alexander Hamilton’s written plan for the Constitution, which he gave to Madison near the close of the Convention, had a presidential eligibility clause similar to the one adopted in the Constitution but omitting the word “natural”: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.” Hamilton Plan, Art. IX, §1, 3 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 619, 629 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1938) [hereinafter FARRAND, RECORDS]. That appears to provide exactly what the modern consensus thinks the eligibility clause provides. However, the actual text does not say “born a citizen” but instead adopted (without explanation) the phrase “natural born.” Perhaps it was understood as a synonym, but that is far from obvious. 19 See JOHN ASH, NEW AND COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1775); SAMUEL JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755); NATHAN BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1721).
The most common indicators of textual meaning – the drafting and ratifying history – are not helpful in finding a conclusive meaning. The initial draft of presidential eligibility came from the Committee of Detail’s August 22, 1787, report, and called only for the President to be “of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant thereof for Twenty one years.”20 The “natural born” language first appeared in the Committee of Eleven report on September 4, in substantially its current form, 21 without explanation, and apparently it was not debated by the Convention: The Committee of Eleven did not explain why this new language had been added. The Convention approved this portion of the proposals without debate. The draft Constitution was then referred to a second Committee of Five, known as the Committee on Style and Arrangement or the Committee on Revision. That Committee retained the presidential qualification clause without comment, and without substantial change. It was adopted in this form, and without any debate, by the Convention. Indeed, no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberations of the Convention.22 There is some evidence, though, that the phrase had its origins with Secretary of Foreign Affairs (and future Federalist co-author) John Jay, who was not at the Convention. Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, the chair of the Convention, on July 25, 1787, making the following suggestion: Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. 23 Jay did not elaborate what he meant by “natural born Citizen.” On September 2, shortly before the phrase appeared in the Committee draft, and Washington replied, thanking Jay for “the hints contained in your letter.”24 As one commentator concludes: 20 2 FARRAND, RECORDS, at 367. The Committee of Detail’s initial report, which had no presidential eligibility requirements, was delivered to the Convention on August 6, see id. at 176, and several additional matters (although not presidential eligibility specifically) were referred back to the Committee on August 18 and 20, see id. at 333, 342-43. The Committee then issued an additional report on August 22, recommending eligibility requirements. 21 2 id. at 498. The Committee of Eleven, composed of one person from each of the eleven states then in attendance, was charged with resolving important matters that remained outstanding after the Convention considered the Committee of Detail report. 22 Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States, supra note 6, at 5. 23 Jay to Washington, July 25,1787, 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 61. See CHARLES THACH, THE CREATION OF THE PRESIDENCY 1775-1789, at 137 (1923). 24 Washington to John Jay, September 2, 1787, 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 76.
Because the second version of the presidential requirements came a mere two days following Jay’s letter to Washington and was adopted without discussion, and considering Washington’s considerable presence at the convention, it is entirely possible that Jay’s reasons for including the natural-born requirement were the primary motivations behind the provision: namely, fear of foreign dominance of government.25 Some writers have gone further to speculate that Jay had a particular person in mind for exclusion: Baron von Steuben, the Prussian officer who had been a principal aide to General Washington during the Revolutionary War, but who was regarded as untrustworthy as a result of some subsequent activities.26 (Jay was thinking only of the office of Commander-in-Chief; because the Philadelphia proceedings were secret, he did not know that the Convention had decided to create a President who was also Commander-in-Chief). Other historical studies suggest that the framers’ motivation was more broadly a concern over the ambitions of foreign aristocrats and would-be monarchs.27 Professor Akhil Amar, for example, emphasizes the framers’ worries that foreign noblemen might seek to become the American monarch, and notes that England had twice invited a foreign aristocrat to become king (William III and George I).28 Requiring natural born citizenship, rather than just citizenship, would avoid intrigues to naturalize favored foreigners (and potential monarchs): The apparent purposes of this citizenship clause were thus to assure the requisite fealty and allegiance to the nation from the person to be the chief executive of the United States, and to prevent wealthy foreign citizens, and particularly wealthy foreign royalty and their relatives, from coming to the United States, becoming naturalized citizens, and then scheming and buying their way into the Presidency or creating an American monarchy.29 Early commentary confirms the clause’s basic purpose. Convention delegate Charles Pinckney later commented that the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to “insure … attachment to the country.”30 St. George Tucker, writing in 1803, described the clause as “a happy means of security against foreign influence” 25 See Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, supra note 6, at 937-38. 26 THACH, CREATION OF THE PRESIDENCY, supra note 23, at 137 (“The name of [Baron] von Steuben is not mentioned, but there can be little doubt that it was he … with his sympathies for the followers of Shay, and his evidently suspected dealings with Prince Henry of Prussia, whom Jay had in mind when he penned these words. The silent insertion of the clause in a committee where matters could be managed quietly tends to confirm the conjecture.”). 27 E.g., AMAR, AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION, supra note 4, at 164-165. 28 Id. at 165 (noting these fears and referring to the eligibility clause as “lay[ing] to rest public anxieties about foreign monarchs.”). See also id. (“Out of an abundance of caution – paranoia, perhaps – the framing generation barred not only European-style titles of nobility, but also European noblemen themselves (along with all other future immigrants) from America’s most powerful and dangerous office.”). 29 MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 2, at 8. 30 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 387 (speech to U.S. Senate, Mar. 28, 1800).
And as “guarding against” the “admission of foreigners into our councils.”31 Although not speaking specifically of the eligibility clause, in Federalist 68 Alexander Hamilton – discussing selection of the President – warned against “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”32 Writing somewhat later, in 1833, Joseph Story echoed these views: It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States ... [T]he general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.33 While plausible, these observations provide limited insight into the details of the clause’s meaning. It seems clear that the phrase was intended to place a higher bar on presidential eligibility than the Convention had placed on eligibility for Congress, whose members merely had to be U.S. citizens for seven and nine years for the House and Senate respectively.34 The events surrounding the drafting indicate a paradigm case of exclusion – persons lacking any plausible connections to the United States at birth – but standing alone they are not helpful in determining what connections would be sufficient. In particular, they do not make clear whether statutory citizenship at birth would be sufficient. It also does not appear that there was any material discussion of the clause in the ratification debates. And the one near-contemporaneous comment by James Madison is ambiguous. In connection with the 1789 debate over the eligibility of William Smith to be a member of Congress, Madison emphasized that Smith had been born in the United States and observed: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; 31 1 ST. GEORGE TUCKER. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, at App. 316-29 (1803). 32 Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton), in ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JAMES MADISON & JOHN JAY, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, at 412 (1788) (Clinton Rossiter ed. 1961). 33 3 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 332-33 (1833). 34 U.S. CONST. Art. I, §§ 2 & 3. In an earlier debate on August 13, Elbridge Gerry, speaking of the eligibility of members of Congress, had said that he “wished that in the future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes …” 2 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 268. Madison and Hamilton objected on the other side and moved to eliminate the restrictions altogether. Gerry’s suggestion did not come to a vote; the Hamilton/Madison motion was voted down, along with several others. Id. at 368-73. See John M. Yinger, The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen" and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees? (2000), available at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm (discussing this debate).
But, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States ....”35 While Madison emphasized birth within the United States, questions about extraterritorial birth were not raised and it seems that he deliberately avoided the issue. A further consideration is that in 1790, Congress enacted a naturalization statute, pursuant to its Article I, Section 8 power to provide a uniform rule of naturalization. In addition to specifying the method by which aliens could be naturalized, the statute provided: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…36 One might take the 1790 act as indicative of the Constitution’s original meaning, at least to the extent that the First Congress believed it had power to define natural born citizen in this way.37 But no one in Congress explained the basis for such a belief or the extent of the power Congress understood itself to have. Moreover, the 1790 Act was replaced five years later by a new naturalization act whose principal effect was to extend the residency period for aliens wishing to become citizens from two to five years. As to children of U.S. citizens, the new Act dropped the phrase “natural born citizen” and said only: the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States …38 The effect of the 1795 Act seems thoroughly ambiguous: was the key phrase “natural born” dropped inadvertently, dropped because Congress thought it was surplusage, or dropped because Congress had decided (for constitutional reasons or otherwise) that foreign-born children of U.S. parents should not be declared natural born? Nothing in the congressional debates indicates a satisfactory answer. 35 MATTHEW CLARKE & DAVID HALL, CASES OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS IN CONGRESS, FROM THE YEAR 1789 TO 1834, INCLUSIVE 33 (1834) (1st Cong., 1st Sess. (1789)); see MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 18, at 24 n. 111. Smith was born in what became the United States but his parents were loyalists who remained British subjects. 36 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. Some modern commentators have doubted Congress’ power to declare foreign-born children of U.S. parents to be U.S. citizens at birth. However, that objection seems insubstantial. As the English practice discussed in the next section shows, making a person a subject by statute, whether at birth or otherwise, was called “naturalization.” See infra part II.B. Thus Congress’ naturalization power undoubtedly extended to making a category of persons citizens at birth, as the 1790 Act did. The difficult question is whether Congress had power to declare them natural born citizens. 37 See Clement & Katyal, supra note 4, at 2 (relying on the 1790 statute). 38 An act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, § 3 (Jan. 29, 1795), 1 Stat. 414. Naturalization acts thereafter did not use “natural born.”
II. Three Foreign Sources of Eighteenth-Century Meaning The eligibility clause received little contemporaneous explanation by the founding generation. As a result, its meaning is best assessed by examination of eighteenthcentury legal traditions that might have influenced the framers’ understanding of it. Of these, there are three, which unfortunately point in somewhat different directions. A. English Common Law To begin, the phrase “natural born subject” had an established meaning in English39 law, and might reasonably be seen as a predecessor to the Constitution’s phrase “natural born Citizen.” Because the Constitution does not define most of its terms and uses phrases obviously drawn from contemporary legal language – ex post facto, habeas corpus, bill of attainder, and the like – the English legal background with which its drafters were familiar is rich source of meaning, often more useful and relevant than dictionaries, which defined terms often without reference to their legal contexts.40 As Chief Justice Taft later wrote, when considering the meaning of the pardon power: The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.41 39 For convenience I use “English” to refer to the law both before and after the 1707 union of the crowns of England and Scotland to form Great Britain. 40 The phrase “natural born” is not defined as a phrase (or otherwise used) in the leading eighteenth century dictionaries. See JOHN ASH, NEW AND COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1775); SAMUEL JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755); NATHAN BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1721). Yet the phrase appears to be used as a term of art in legal enactments (indeed, in some versions it is hyphenated), thus making its meaning difficult to reconstruct from the individual words. In any event, the definitions of the individual words are unhelpful. For example, Johnson defined “Natural” as, among other things, “produced or effected by nature” and “native; original inhabitant.”; “Native” in turn he defined as both “one born in any place; original inhabitant” and “conferred by birth.” 2 JOHNSON, DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1349. Ash’s dictionary is to similar effect. Bailey’s 1765 edition defined “Naturalization” as “when one who is an alien, is made a natural Subject by an act of parliament.” BAILEY, DICTIONARY, at 566. Similarly Ash defined “Naturalize” as “to make natural … to invest a foreigner with the privileges of a native subject,” with “Native” defined (following Johnson) as both “one born in any place; original inhabitant” and “conferred by birth.” 2 ASH, COMPLETE DICTIONARY (definitions of “Natural,” “Naturalized” and “Native.”). 41 Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-109 (1925). See also Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390-91 (1798) (Chase, J.) “The prohibition that ‘no state shall pass any ex post facto law’ necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing. … The expressions ‘ ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors.”); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478
Under English common law, a natural born subject – consistent with the common legal meaning of “natural” – was one whose subjectship arose from the nature of things. As Blackstone explained: The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligence, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligament, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection with the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or a substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.42 Blackstone then noted some minor exceptions: When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot have two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.43 The principal common-law exception, Blackstone added, was that “the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.” 44 On the other hand, Blackstone added, “[t]he children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”45 (1888) (“The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”); Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000) (relying on Calder and the English common law meaning of “ex post facto” to interpret the ex post fact clause); MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 2, at 1-2 (noting relevance of eighteenth century common law to the eligibility clause under these precedents and explaining: “Although the English common law is not “binding” on federal courts in interpreting the meaning of words or phrases within the Constitution, nor is it necessarily to be considered the “law” of the United States (as it is for the individual states specifically incorporating it), it can be employed to shed light on the concepts and precepts within the document that are not defined there, but which are reflected in the corpus of British law and jurisprudence of the time.”); Clement & Katyal, supra note 2, at 1 (noting English common law as an important source of constitutional meaning). 42 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 354-55. 43 Id. at 361. 44 Id. 45 Id. at 361-62.
Thus anyone reading Blackstone (as the framers did) would understand English common law to view “natural born” as tied very closely to birth within English territory. As Blackstone explained, this was a “natural” relationship in that it arose not from an act of parliament but from the nature of the relationship between the person and the monarch: the monarch granted protection in return for allegiance.46 Although Blackstone was not always reliable in his accounts of English law, on this point his description conforms to later historical descriptions. One such account described the common law as follows: By the common law all persons born within the power or protection of the Crown owe natural allegiance to the King, and are natural-born subjects of the realm, while all born out to the allegiance or protection of the King are aliens born, and remain aliens unless they are subsequently made denizens or naturalized. For the law of England had always adopted to feudal or territorial principle of determining nationality by the place of birth alone …47 This account also confirmed Blackstone’s recognition of narrow exceptions for children of ambassadors, whose nationality was determined by that of their father, not of their place of birth, and the children or others who did not owe even temporary allegiance to the territorial sovereign: [A] person, though born within the realm may yet be an alien, if he is born in circumstances that he cannot be held from the moment of his birth to owe allegiance to the king. Such, for instance, are the children of persons who, by the comity of nations … are looking upon as being ex-territorial, e.g., a foreign sovereign or his ambassador or accredited minister; such also are the children of alien enemies, who, as members of an invading army, may have succeeded in occupying part of the King’s territory, for these cannot be considered to be even temporary subjects of the King, for where no protection can be claimed, no allegiance can be due.48 As numerous sources emphasize, these rules of English common law trace their traditional exposition to Calvin’s Case, 49 as reported by Sir Edward Coke in the early seventeenth century. The precise issue there was the status of a person born in Scotland 46 Id. at 354-55. This understanding comports with contemporary dictionary definitions of “natural” as that arising from nature. See supra n. 33. 47 HENRY S.Q. HENRIQUES, THE LAW OF ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION 29 (1923). See also id. at 62 (“the general effect [of the common law rule] is, that persons born within the dominions of the King, whether of English or foreign parents, are natural-born subjects, and that persons born without his dominions are aliens.”) 48 Id. at 29-30. See also id. at 62-63 (listing as “[p]ersons born within the Realm or other dominions of the King who are aliens born” as the children of a foreign sovereign, ambassador or other diplomat and children born in territory occupied by a hostile army); id. at 63 (listing as “[p]ersons born without the Dominions of the King who are Natural-Born Subjects at Common Law” as children of the English monarch and his ambassadors and diplomatic agents and children born “within the territory of a prince who is subject to and bound to do homage to the King of England.”). 49 Calvin’s Case [Calvin v. Smith], 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608).
After the Scottish king James also became king of England. The case, however, contains substantial discussion of the English common law of subjectship, setting forth the strong birth-within-sovereign territory approach repeated in Blackstone and later historical accounts.50 In sum, the traditional English common law was that a “natural born” subject was only one born within the territory of the king, with narrow exceptions for the children of ambassadors and other ministers, and of invading armies. The touchstone was birth under the protection of the sovereign, which the common law understood to arise (except in unusual circumstances) from presence in the monarch’s dominions. If that were the end of the pre-Convention story, one might plausibly argue that only birth within the United States could convey presidential eligibility. It is, however, not the end of the story. As described in the next section, in addition to the common law background England had a complicated statutory tradition defining the phrase “natural born.” B. The English Statutory Background. A bedrock principle of eighteenth-century English law was that Parliament could alter, extend and re-define the common law by statute. Despite the common law background of the phrase “natural born,” parliament had a long experience of statutory intervention. That is not surprising, for even in ancient times the common law rule created the practical oddity that the children of English subjects traveling or temporarily residing abroad were not English subjects even upon their (and their parents’) return to England. This condition had various difficulties attached, because under common law aliens could not own or inherent property and suffered other disqualifications.51 Of course, aliens could be “naturalized.” By this, it was initially meant that a change in status could be effected individually by acts of parliament making particular named persons English subjects.52 Presumably parliament commonly used this approach to resolve the problem of subjects’ children born abroad, as well as to make English subjects of aliens emigrating from their home countries. At least in the seventeenth century and earlier, persons naturalized in this way by statute apparently had all the rights of natural born citizens.53 50 See Polly Price, Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case, 9 YALE J. L. & HUM. 73 (1997). 51 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 360-61; HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 1-10. 52 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38-39 (noting an instance as early as the reign of Henry VI but finding that “private Acts of Parliament of this kind did not come into vogue until the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth.”). These private naturalization acts were common in the seventeenth century. See, e.g., 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 159-160 (1819) (1963 reprint) (listing “Private Acts” of 1695-96 as including various acts “for the naturalization of” individual named persons). See also authorities cited supra, n. 33 (defining “naturalized” as having been given by statute the rights of natural born subjects). 53 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38. As noted below, this full equivalence was changed by the Act of Settlement. See infra, nn. 62-63.
Parliament also altered the common law consequences of alienage on a general scale as early as the fourteenth century. As described above, the common law rule was that non-citizens could not inherit land, even from English-subject decedents (including their parents). In 1350, however, parliament provided first that “the Law ... is, and always hath been” that “Children of the Kings of England, in whatever Parts they be born, in England or elsewhere, be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the death of their ancestors.”54 It further provided that the children of certain named persons “which were born beyond the Sea, out of the Ligeance of England, shall be from henceforth able to have and enjoy their Inheritance after the death of their Ancestors, in all Parts within the Ligeance of England, as well as those that should be born within the same Ligeance.”55 Finally it provided: [A]ll Children Inheritors, which from henceforth shall be born without the Ligeance of the King, whose Fathers and Mothers at the Time of their Birth be and shall be at the Faith and Ligeance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same Benefits and Advantages, to have and bear the Inheritance within the same Ligeance, as the other inheritors as aforesaid in Time to come. 56 By this provision, then, parliament modified the effect of extraterritorial birth but did not use the phrase “natural born” nor purport to make subjects of aliens. So far, the statutory view accorded with the common law view (taking into account parliament’s ability to modify the common law): those born abroad, even with subject parents, remained aliens, but the consequences of their alienage were somewhat relaxed. The 1350 act did, however, begin to introduce the idea that those born abroad of subject parents merited some special consideration. Of greater significance was Parliament’s gradual claim, starting in the seventeenth century, to be able to modify the meaning of “natural born.” The seventeenth century posed rising challenges to the common law rule because, due to peculiar historical circumstances, unusually large numbers of children were born abroad to English parents. In particular, the turmoil of the mid-century Civil War drove many supporters of the Crown (and the heir to the Crown himself) abroad for a substantial amount of time, resulting in many more “English” children being born abroad. One may speculate that the system of private acts was too cumbersome to handle the post-Restoration demand for naturalization. In any event, after the Restoration, parliament in 1677 passed a statute, “An Act for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majestyes English Subjects Borne in English law also traditionally recognized the power of the monarch to make an alien into a “denizen,” which was a sort of intermediate status, in terms of rights, between an alien and a subject. See HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38 (adding that “the King by his prerogative could not grant the full rights of a natural-born subject”). 54 A Statute for those who are born in Parts beyond the Sea, 25 Ed. III, st. 1 (1350), 1 STATUTES OF THE REALM 310 (1810) (1963 reprint). 55 Id. 56 Id.
Forreigne Countryes during the Late Troubles,” noting that numerous English subjects “did by reason of their attendance upon his Majestie or for feare of the then Usurped Powers reside in parts beyond the Seas out of his Majestyes Dominions.”57 The statute then declared that all persons: Who at any time betweene the fourteenth day of June in the said yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred forty one and the foure and twentieth day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred and sixty were born out of his Majestyes Dominions and whose Fathers or Mothers were Naturall borne Subjects of the Realme are hereby declared and shall for ever be esteemed and taken to all Intents and Purposes to be and to have been the Kings Naturall borne Subjects of the Kingdom and … shall be adjudged reputed and taken to be and to have been in every respect and degree Naturall borne Subjects and free to all intents purposes and constructions as if they and every of them had been born in England.58 It is important to emphasize here that parliament made a relatively narrow and precise change to the common law, applicable only to those born between 1641 and 1660 (that is, the interregnum period of the Civil War) and only to those who had fled England on account of the Civil War. Moreover, by linking the statutory “natural born subject” category to the time in which the rightful king himself was out of the country, parliament might be said not so much to be redefining natural born subjectship in general but accommodating a uniquely disruptive episode in English history. At the same time, though, the 1677 statute was a departure from traditional practice in that Parliament did not merely naturalize a group of people; it specifically declared them “natural born.” That approach lacked practical significance, however, since under the law of the time there apparently was no difference in the rights of natural born and naturalized subjects. The next step came in 1698, with “An Act to Naturalize the Children of such Officers and Souldiers & others the natural borne Subjects of the Realm who have been borne abroad during the Warr the Parents of such Children having been in the Service of this Government.” 59 The situation here was that King William III had spent extended time in his native Netherlands directing the war with France, together with a substantial army and body of attendants from England. As during the Civil War, that created a large group of people born abroad who were obviously English in every practical sense, but under the common law were not subjects. Adopting the form of the 1677 statute, parliament began by noting (consistent with common law) that: Whereas during the late War with France divers of His Majestys good and lawfull Subjects … did by rason of their Attendance on His Majesty in Flanders and bearing Armes under His said Majesty against the French King and other His 57 29 Ch. II, c. 6 (1677), 5 STATUTES OF THE REALM 847 (1819) (1963 reprint). 58 Id. The statute further provided that to gain natural born status the children in question had to receive the sacrament from the Church of England and take the oath of allegiance to the king, provisions repeated in later statutes. 59 9 Will. III, ch. 20 (1698), 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 380 (1820) (1963 reprint).
Majestyies Enemies reside in Parts beyond the Seas out of his Majesties Dominions. And whereas during such Residence abroad divers Children have been borne unto such his Majesties Subjects which said Children notwithstanding they have been borne of English parents yet by reason of their being borne in Parts beyond the Seas out of His Majesties Dominions may be interpreted to be incapable of taking receiving or enjoying any Manors and lands or any other Privileges and Immunities belonging to the liege People and natural borne subjects of his Kingdom …60 Parliament then declared, again in the model of the 1677 statute: That … Persons who att any time since the Thirteenth Day of February One thousand six hundred eighty eight or at any time since the beginning of the said late Warr with France & before the Twenty fifth Day of March One thousand six hundred ninety and eight which are or shall be borne out of His Majesties Dominions and whose Fathers or Mothers were natural borne subjects of this Realme and were then actually in the Service of His Majesty or of His Majesty and the Late Queen of Blessed Memory are hereby declared and shall forever be esteemed and taken to all Intents & Purposes to be and to have been the Kings natural born Subjects of this Kingdome and that the said Children and every one of them are and shall be adjudged reputed and taken to be in every respect and degree natural borne subjects and free to all Intents Purposes & Constructions as if they & every one of them had been borne in England. As in 1677, the adjustment of the common law operated in a narrow temporal window (1688 to 1698) and was keyed to a particular oddity of the King being substantially absent from the realm. Moreover, the 1698 statute specifically applied only to those actually in the King’s service (that is, not to merchants or other persons abroad for other reasons, who presumably would still be governed by the common law as modified by the statute of 1350). But also of note, parliament continued the 1677 statute’s approach of declaring persons to be natural born, even where the common law would not have given them this status (and doing so retroactively). At around the same time, the Act of Settlement in 1700, without mentioning natural birth, may have been the original English precedent for the eligibility clause. It provided: That no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements 60 Id.
Or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him.61 Presumably the immediate impetus was that the Act contemplated the Crown passing (as in fact it did) to the German kings of Hanover upon the death of Queen Anne, 62 and parliament wished to bar an influx of German courtiers into English government. Parliament may also have been influenced by the tendency of William III (a Dutchman) to rely on Dutch rather than English advisors, to the considerable annoyance of English politicians. In any event, the Act of Settlement indicated a preference for local birth, with a further recognition that birth overseas to English parents was the practical equivalent. It does not bear directly on the meaning of “natural born,” however, because (perhaps oddly) the Act did not use the phrase – although it might have.63 Thus at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the statutory law and common law meaning of “natural born” were, as a practical matter, substantially aligned, with narrow exceptions for people born in particular circumstances and particular time periods. But the 1677 and 1698 Acts were potentially important departures as a theoretical matter, because in them parliament had undertaken its own definition of “natural born” (albeit with limited scope). Eighteenth century parliaments seized on these precedents to make very sweeping changes to the common law definition. In 1708, Parliament provided: [T]he Children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty Her Heires and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.64 The 1708 statute, although to some extent a logical successor to the seventeenth century legislation, revolutionized the rules of subjectship in several respects. First, it was openended temporally, applying indefinitely into the future. Second, it no longer rested on unique historical circumstances, nor could it be justified by a legal fiction of direct 61 12 & 13 Will. III, ch. 2 (1700), 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 636, 637 (1820) (1963 reprint). As a followup, to prevent evasion of this requirement, parliament provided that no future naturalization bill could be passed unless it contained a similar statement of disqualification. 1 Geo. I, ch. 4 (1714), 13 STATUTES AT LARGE 141, 142 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1764). 62 See 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM, at 637. 63 Interestingly, the Act of Settlement apparently contemplated that some persons who were not natural born subjects would not be politically disqualified. Although the 1677 and 1698 Acts had made some persons born abroad of English parents natural born subjects, they conspicuously had not done so for all such persons. 64 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5 (1708), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 63 (1822) (1963 reprint). As the title of the Act indicates, the Act actually went much further, also declaring that all foreign born protestants who took the oath of allegiance to the English monarch “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be Her Majesties natural born subjects of the Kingdom to all Intents Constitutions and Purposes as if they and every of them had been or were born within this Kingdom.” That provision was repealed just three years later because of “divers Mischiefs and Inconveniences,” see 10 Anne ch. 9 (1711), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 557 (1822) (1963 reprint).
Service to the king when the king was abroad. The statute was thus a full-blown redefinition of the common law, not merely a one-time adjustment. The 1708 statute had a key ambiguity. The seventeenth century statutes had specifically said that to be covered a child needed only one natural born parent, father or mother. The 1708 statute, in contrast, could be read to require either one natural born parent or two, depending on how one read the phrase “children of all natural born subjects.” That led parliament in 1731 to pass an Act to “explain” the 1708 statute, which provided: [A]ll children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act … and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.65 Note here that the “explanation” is that one’s father must be a natural born subject, a departure from the seventeenth century statutes and really a change from (rather than a clarification of) the 1708 statute. For present purposes, though, the core point is that the 1731 statute continued the practice of declaring a class to be not merely subjects but natural born subjects. Parliament used similar phrasing in a 1773 statute that extended natural-born subject status to those whose paternal grandfathers were natural-born citizens. 66 That statute expressly linked the extension of subjectship to policy considerations arising from expanding foreign commerce, reciting that: Whereas divers natural-born subjects of Great Britain who profess and exercise the protestant religion, though various lawful causes, especially for the better carrying on of commerce, have been, and are, obliged to reside in several trading cities and other foreign places, where they have contracted marriages and brought up families: and Whereas it is equally just and expedient that the kingdom should not be deprived of such subjects, nor lose the benefit of the wealth that they have acquired; and therefore that not only the children of such natural born subjects, but their children also, should continue under the allegiance of his Majesty, and be intitled to come into this kingdom, and to bring hither and realize or otherwise employ their capital…67 65 An act to explain a clause in an act made in the seventh year of the reign of her late majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing foreign Protestants, which relates to the children of the natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, 4 Geo. II, ch. 21 (1731), 16 STATUTES AT LARGE 243 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1765). The benefits of the statute were expressly denied to those whose parents had been attainted of treason or in the service of a foreign prince in enmity to the crown. Id. 66 13 Geo. III, ch. 21, (1773), 30 STATUTES AT LARGE 28-29 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1785). 67 Id.
The act then provided, following the 1731 statute: that all persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the ligeanace of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose fathers were or shall be, by virtue of [the statute of 4 Geo. II ch. 21] shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this kingdom…68 The founding generation in America was aware of these statutes, if not directly, via Blackstone, who noted: To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw III, st.2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king ... might inherit as if born in England … But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural born subjects, are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exceptions; unless their said fathers were attained, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.69 Blackstone’s description seems to resolve a possible ambiguity in the statutes, which might be read only the say that foreign born children have the rights of natural born citizens, not that they are natural born citizens. Blackstone, however, uses the phrase “are now natural born citizens,” indicating a change in the definition, not merely an expansion of rights. This stands in contrast to his later discussion of naturalization after birth: [E]very foreign seaman who in time of war serves two years on board an English ship is ipso facto naturalized; and all foreign protestants, and Jews, upon their residing seven years in any of the American colonies, without being absent above two months at a time, are upon taking the oaths naturalized to all intents and purposes, as if they had been born in this kingdom; and therefore are admissible to all such privileges, and no other, as protestants or Jews born in this kingdom are entitled to.70 Again, Blackstone’s description is consistent with later historical works. For example, one leading account declares: Persons Born Abroad who are by Statute Natural-born British Subjects.—Some persons born out of the dominions of the King, though aliens by the common law, 68 Id. 69 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 361. This was written before the 1773 Act extended natural born status to grandchildren. 70 Id. at 363.
Have been made natural-born subjects by statute. These persons differ from those already mentioned, who, though born out of the King’s dominions, are naturalborn subjects by the common law in that the later, though born without the dominions, are yet born within the allegiance of the King. … The result of these statutes71 is, that a person, though born abroad, whose father or grandfather on the father’s side was born within the British dominions, is a natural-born British subject …72 Although neither Parliament nor Blackstone provided a full explanation for why children born abroad to English subject parents were appropriately called “natural born subjects,” the statutory extension seems consistent with the principles of the common law. Under common law, “natural born” meant born within the protection of the monarch (and thus, as a natural matter, owing allegiance to the person who provided protection). In ancient times, when few people travelled, this understandably meant just those people born in the monarch’s territory, since that was typically the extent of the monarch’s protection. But by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as foreign travel expanded, the protection of the monarch had to be understood more broadly, because English subjects travelling abroad also owed the monarch allegiance and claimed the monarch’s protection. Thus children of English subjects born abroad were born under the allegiance and protection of the monarch (what the common law required of a “natural born citizen”) even though not born in the monarch’s lands. The statutory expansion of natural born subjects thus likely reflected a new recognition that the monarch’s protection and allegiance extended abroad in respect of English subjects and their children. As a result, the traditional common law rule does not capture the English legal background in which the framers operated. By the late eighteenth century, parliament had claimed power to define natural born subjectship substantially beyond what the common law recognized, and to extend it – expressly for policy reasons – to broad classes of people born outside English territory. But even if we assume that the American framers had English statutory law in mind, it remains somewhat ambiguous what they would have concluded from it. Would they think that “natural born” meant what it meant in English law in 1787-88 (birth within sovereign territory or birth abroad to a citizen father or grandfather)? Or would they have taken it more broadly to mean that “natural born” could, at least to a significant 71 The prior omitted paragraph quotes the 1708, 1731, and 1773 statutes excerpted previously. 72 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 66-67. Another contemporary account, which may not have been available to the framers, is Richard Wooddeson’s 1777 series of lectures in English law (published in 1792). Consistent with Blackstone, Wooddeson observed that “An alien by the laws of England, is one born out of the ligenance of the king … [I]f natural born subjects have children born abroad, such children also, by the st. 7 A[nne] c. 5 § 3, are to be adjudged natural born subjects, and not aliens.” RICHARD WOODDESON, A SYSTEMATIC VIEW OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 370 (1792) (lecture delivered in 1777). He added: “The issue of an alien, born within the realm, are accounted natural subjects.” Id. at 386.
Extent, be defined by statute? Part IV takes up that question, but before doing so it is necessary to consider another possible source of the framers’ meaning. C. Vattel and the Civil Law Tradition English law is not the only possible source of the Framers’ understanding of “natural born” citizenship. Indeed, it is a slightly problematic one. English law spoke of natural born “subjects” rather than natural born “citizens,” and it is possible that the revolutionary-minded Americans perceived a difference between citizens and subjects for this purpose.73 Moreover, the civil law tradition, and especially the influential work of the Swiss theorist Emer de Vattel, supplies another possible definition of the phrase expressly linked to “citizens” rather than “subjects.” Vattel had this to say: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. .. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.74 Vattel added that “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” As to those born abroad, Vattel declared: It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change 73 See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 10 (making this point and discussing distinctions between citizens and subject made, inter alia, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)). 74 VATTEL, LAW OF NATIONS, supra note 9, bk. I, ch. XIX, § 212 (1758) (1797 transl.). Note that this is a later translation than was available to the Framers. In the original French (which was available to the framers), the key sentence reads: “Les naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.” Translations available at the time of the framing of the Constitution rendered the terms “naturels or indigenes” as “natives or indigenes”, thus: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” See MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 4, at 22 n.100 (quoting VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, at p. 92 (1760 translation), and VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, at p. 166 (1787 translation)).
In this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from the child what nature has given him; …75 Thus Vattel’s view was apparently both broader and narrower than English common law – narrower in disqualifying people born within sovereign territory of noncitizen fathers from “natural born” status and broader in embracing natural citizenship for those born abroad to citizen fathers. (English statutory law paralleled Vattel on the latter point, but not the former).76 Although Vattel was no doubt a principal channel for conveying this view of citizenship to America, he was not an outlier; rather, he reflected the basic idea of citizenship by blood, or “jus sanguinis,” in civil law traditions, which were likely accessible to at least some of the framers from other sources. Blackstone acknowledged the difference: after declaring that all children of aliens born in England were English subjects, he observed “in which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”77 As a result, Vattel and the civil law tradition offer an alternative definition of “natural born” substantially at odds with the modern view. It would make a sizeable category of people not “natural born” even though born in the United States, and it would suggest that children born abroad of a citizen mother but not a citizen father are not natural born.78 It remains to ask which of these meanings – common law, statutory law, or civil law – is most plausibly assigned to the eligibility clause. The next section takes up that question. III. The American Understanding of Citizenship. This section asks which of the foregoing sources of meaning is best understood as the original public meaning of the eligibility clause. It is worth emphasizing here that the 75 VATTEL, LAW OF NATIONS, supra note 9, bk. I, ch. XIX, § 215. 76 It is possible to read Vattel to require both birth in sovereign territory and birth of a citizen father to establish “natural born” status. Read in isolation, that is what section 212 appears to say. However, section 215 adds that those born abroad to a citizen father has the same status “by the law of nature,” which appears to extend the category of those who have citizenship naturally. 77 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 362. See also HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 29: [T]he law of England has always adopted the feudal or territorial principles of determining nationality by the place of birth alone, and has always, in theory, at any rate, rejected the contrary principle founded on the Roman law and incorporated in the Code Napoleon and the jurisprudence of many modern nations, whereby children, wherever they are born, are always deemed to possess the nationality of their parents, a legitimate child taking the nationality of the father and an illegitimate child taking that of the mother. 78 To be clear, this reading would not affect the citizenship of persons in these categories. Congress has power to naturalize (that is, to make an alien a citizen) and English practice shows that “naturalization” could be done either individually or categorically. Moreover, as to persons born in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment appears categorically to declare them citizens at birth. The question, germane only to the eligibility clause, is whether persons in these categories are “natural born” citizens (as opposed to citizens by positive law), and the strong implication of a reading based on Vattel is that they are not.
Question is not the subjective intent of any particular framer, or even the collective subjective intent of all the framers (even assuming that could be identified). It is, rather, the public meaning of “natural born Citizen” – what a reasonable informed observer would understand by the phrase in the context in which it was used. In this sense, the legal meanings sketched in the preceding subsections are in the nature of dictionary definitions – they do not necessarily represent the views of everyone, or of any particular person, because people may use words colloquially or incorrectly. Rather they represent (or may represent) a meaning ascribed by the culture – in this case the legal culture – in general. With this in mind, consider the possible candidates. Although each has surface plausibility, this section argues that the best source of meaning in this situation is English law generally, combining common law and statutory law. As explained below, the alternatives are speculative or implausible. A. The Preference for the English over the Civil Law Definition. Relying on Vattel, and more generally the civil law tradition, to define “natural born” has some attractions. To begin, Vattel used the word “citizen” (citoyen) rather than “subject.” English law consistently used “subject.” As the Constitution also uses “citizen,” and as the revolutionary generation in America surely saw at least in some contexts a difference between citizens and subjects,79 Vattel might be thought to have a closer connection to the eligibility clause’s text and context. Further, Vattel’s work was well known in founding-era America, both in the original French and in several English translations. Vattel was a principal source of the founding-generation’s understanding of the law of nations, which the United States, as a weak state threatened by powerful European empires, was anxious to uphold.80 Thus there are reasons to think the framers might have looked to Vattel in defining natural born citizens. The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear – as clear as we can be about these matters – that no widespread public connection was drawn.81 79 See, e.g., DAVID RAMSAY, A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES 4 (1789) (discussing the difference between citizens and subjects); Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 10. 80 See MICHAEL D. RAMSEY, THE CONSTITUTION’S TEXT IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS 179-180, 344-45 (2007) (discussing the influence of international law writers, especially Vattel, in founding-era America). 81 The closest to a founding-era adoption of Vattel’s approach is in David Ramsay’s brief 1789 “dissertation” on citizenship. Ramsay does not discuss “natural born” citizenship in those words, though at one point he says “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have born of citizens since July 4, 1776.” RAMSAY, DISSERTATION, supra note 79, at 6. That appears to express a “jus sanguinis” approach to citizenship consistent with Vattel. Elsewhere, though, he says that citizenship can be acquired by “birth or inheritance.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). This observation seems in tension with his claim that citizenship “as a natural right” could only come from one’s parents, because its disjunctive suggests that one could.
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state82 and (in others) “natural born citizens.”83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution. Similarly, Zephaniah Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, published in 1795, repeatedly uses the phrase “natural born subject” in connection with post-independence inhabitants of Connecticut. He begins his discussion by saying that “the people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighboring acquire citizenship (though perhaps not citizenship “as a natural right”) by birth alone. In any event, to the extent Ramsay took a Vattellian view he appears to be an outlier, and he did not refer to Vattel by name. 82 An Act For Naturalizing William Martin And Others, Mar. 2, 1787 (named naturalized persons “entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born subjects”), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104349/1786acts0077.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Edward Wyer, And Others, Therein Named, May 1, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104360/1786acts0088.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Bartholomy De Gregoire, Maria Theresa De Gregoire, His Wife, And Their Children, Oct. 29, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104376/1787acts0016.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing William Menzies, And Others, Therein Named, June 19, 1788, available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104440/1788acts0015.txt?sequence=1 (same); An Act For Naturalizing Nathaniel Skinner And Others Therein Named, June 22, 1789 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104514/1789acts0012.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing James Huyman, And Others Therein Named, Feb,. 14, 1789 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104488/1788acts0063.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing John Jarvis & Others Therein Named, Mar. 6, 1790 (same), http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104558/1789acts0056.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Alexander Moore, And Others, Herein Named, Nov. 16, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104384/1787acts0024.txt?sequence=1; see also An Act For Naturalizing Michael Cunningham And John Prescott, June 27, 1782 (referring to privileges of “natural subjects”), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/103985/1782acts0004.txt?sequence=1. 83 An Act for Naturalizing John White and Others, Mar. 11, 1791, available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104609/1790acts0047.txt?sequence=1 (named naturalized persons entitled “to all the rights and priviledges of natural born citizens”); An Act For Naturalizing Michael Walsh, Feb. 7, 1786 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104238/1785acts0043.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Nicholas Rousselet And George Smith, Feb. 25, 1785 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104163/1784acts0043.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Jonathan Curson And William Oliver (July 7, 1786) (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104291/1786acts0019.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Elisha Bourn And Others, Therein Named, Nov. 21, 1788 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104450/1788acts0025.txt?sequence=1.
State of the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.” Later he adds that the children of aliens, “born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”84 As a result, there is little reason, on this ground, to think Vattel is a better source of meaning than English law: Americans did not broadly reject the word “subject” and instead used it interchangeably with “citizen.” Third, post-ratification evidence indicates that the framers were using an Englishlaw influenced definition of citizenship, not a Vattel-influenced definition. As described above, the earliest post-ratification discussion of the clause is Madison’s comment in the Smith controversy (in which there was some question whether Representative Smith was a citizen and thus eligible to Congress). Madison wrote: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States....85 As discussed above, this quote is ambiguous on the scope of citizenship rights (and does not use the phrase “natural born” at all). But it strongly indicates that Madison employed an English rather than a Vattelian definition. In referring to birth citizenship deriving “sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage” he is describing the divide between English law “jus soli” and civil law “jus sanguinis.” He then says “place is the most certain criterion” and “what applies in the United States.” “Place” is the rule of English law; it is manifestly not Vattel’s rule, because Vattel excluded from birth citizenship the fairly large class of persons whose fathers were not citizens. Thus Madison apparently thought that the English rules were the U.S. baseline. Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of “subject” to birth in sovereign territory, describing “natural born subjects” as those “born within the state” and later specifically saying that the children of aliens “born in this state” are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87 Like Madison’s assessment, Swift’s description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.88 84 ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, A SYSTEM OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 163, 167 (1795). See also id. at 163 (referring to the “subjects of a state”); id. at 165 (noting that a naturalized foreigner owes the same allegiance as a “natural born subject”); id. at 166 (noting that foreigners enjoy the same “law and justice” as “subjects of this state.”; id. at 167 (noting that children of ambassadors born abroad are considered “natural born subjects”). Notably Swift also sometimes used “citizen” to mean the same as “subject”. See, e.g. id. at 165 (noting that “all citizens of the individual states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, became citizens of the United States”). 85 See supra n. 28 & accompanying text. 86 SWIFT, LAW OF CONNECTICUT, supra note 84, at 165, 167. 87 Id. at 165-66. 88 Swift went so far as to say that “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.” Id. at 165. That, of course, was not true; Vattel and continental writers said the contrary. See supra Part II.C.
St. George Tucker’s 1803 treatise also follows this pattern, observing: Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.89 Again, the equating of “natural born” and “born within the state” contradicts Vattel and adopts the English approach.90 In sum, most American commentators and jurists who discussed citizenship in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries followed the English approach in assuming that as a general rule birth in the United States was sufficient to convey citizenship ().91 That assumption shows that they did not think Vattel’s view had been adopted in the United States, because Vattel directly declared that a person born in a country was not a citizen of that country unless his father was also a citizen of that country. Particularly in the context of a country with high immigration, as the United States was at the time, it would be impossible to follow Vattel’s view without substantial difficulties: large numbers of people moved to the United States and then had children; the children were assumed to be U.S. citizens but (absent subsequent naturalization) would not be under Vattel’s rule. Thus, following Vattel would have created a large (and self-sustaining) class of U.S. residents who were not U.S. citizens despite birth in the United States and with no material connections to any other country. There is no evidence that any substantial number of people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thought U.S. law worked this way. 89 ST. GEORGE TUCKER. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (1803) (Rothman Reprints, 1969). 90 Later constitutional treatises adopt a similar view. See WILLIAM RAWLE, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 86 (1829) (“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution …Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”); 1 JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 255 (1830) (describing the effect of the eligibility clause to be that “the President is required to be a native citizen”); 2 id. at 39 (defining “native” to mean “all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”). Joseph Story wrote to similar effect. See Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 122 (1830) (describing citizenship principally in terms of place of birth); id. at 155 (Story, J., concurring and dissenting) (same). 91 Some debate persisted as to the question of persons born to parents who were only visiting the United States temporarily. See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236 (1844) (reflecting debate over citizenship of persons born of parents only temporarily in the country)
While it is true that this evidence is not comprehensive, it nonetheless indicates that in the post-ratification period Americans tended to adopt the English approach to subjectship/citizenship, not Vattel’s approach. In any event, it outweighs evidence to the contrary, which apart from speculation is essentially non-existent. B. Common Law or Statutory Law? Once we conclude that founding-era Americans looked to English legal conceptions and definitions in thinking about citizenship, we face a more difficult question: does the Constitution adopt the common law meaning, or the common law meaning as modified by statute? As described above, this is a crucial question: English common law, with very minor exceptions, embraced an absolute territorial conception of subjectship at birth, such that (in general) children born abroad of subject parents were not natural subjects;92 in contrast, by statute the class of natural subjects had been extended at various times to various persons, and after 1773 the rule was that children born aboard with English subject fathers or grandfathers were “natural born” English subjects.93 Like the argument for looking to Vattel, the argument for looking only to the common law definition has some textual plausibility. In particular, the text’s use of the word “natural” implies a non-statutory definition, owing to the distinction between natural law and positive (statutory) law. Because English common law, at least with regard to subjectship, regarded itself as founded on natural law, the Constitution’s use of “natural” might be thought of as an express incorporation of common law. Further, unlike in the case of Vattel’s definition, post-ratification sources suggest that Americans were influenced by the natural law of subjectship/citizenship. All of the sources cited above – Madison, Swift, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, and Story – emphasize the common law distinction between birth in sovereign territory and birth outside sovereign territory.94 None of them expressly acknowledges that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens (other than diplomats) could be natural born U.S. citizens, and several of them speak in categorical terms that seem to exclude the possibility. Here, however, it is important to reemphasize that the question is the meaning of “natural born” in the eligibility clause. We look to English law because that that phrase had an established meaning in English law which is the best indication of its public meaning in the United States in 1787-88. Put this way, it seems odd to look at only a portion of English law (common law) rather than the whole body of English law. The simple fact is that the pure common law definition of “natural born” was not the law in England in the 1780s, and had not been for over a century. A quick glance at Blackstone would suffice to show founding-era Americans that parliament had altered the definition on numerous occasions. Importantly, it was not the case that parliament had merely said certain persons born outside English territory were subjects despite the 92 See supra Part II.A. 93 See supra Part II.B. 94 See supra nn. 78-83 & accompanying text.
Common law; parliament had said that such persons would be called “natural born” despite the common law. That is, the statutes expressly changed the definition (and again, this was apparent in Blackstone as well as in the statutes themselves).95 In sum, the late-eighteenth-century definition of “natural born” was a combination of common law and statutory law – and anyone even mildly familiar with English law would have understood it this way. If we are using the meaning of terms in English law as a sort of dictionary definition of legal terms of art in the Constitution, it makes little sense to use anything but the then-existing legal meanings, rather than an artificial subset. Moreover, as discussed, the Constitution’s framers were undoubtedly familiar with the English practice of defining “natural born” subjects by statute, especially through Blackstone’s prominent description of it.96 If the framers wanted to limit presidential eligibility only to persons born within the nation’s territory, it is highly unlikely that they would have used a phrase – “natural born” – that they knew English law defined to include some people born outside the nation’s territory. If there were evidence that the framers’ used a different definition linked only to territory, or that they misunderstood English law, it would be another matter – but as recounted above there is no such evidence. And further, limiting the eligibility clause to the common law meaning would make the 1790 citizenship statute unconstitutional, as explained above. The post-ratification commentary is not to the contrary, because none of it speaks directly to the question. Even with the statutory modifications, eighteenth century English law generally followed the traditional common law definition of “natural born” as meaning territorial birth. Thus it is unsurprising that commentators, speaking generally, used what appears to be the common law definition. None of them confronted the question of whether “natural birth” could encompass statutorily defined birth abroad, and several could be read to suggest that it might.97 Further, the Constitution’s framers were familiar with the idea of statutorily defined birth-right citizenship from their own experiences. As early as 1779, Virginia passed a citizenship statute, “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.”98 By that act, all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act; and all who 95 See supra n. 55. 96 See supra, part I.B.2. In particular, John Jay, who is thought to have prompted the use of the phrase in the eligibility clause, was an Anglophile lawyer, diplomat and U.S. Foreign Secretary who had considerable dealings with England; he would seem likely to have had a full understanding of English law and practice. 97 Kent, for example, discussed the English statutes extending “natural born” status to children born aboard but did not say how those rules translated to U.S. law. 2 KENT, COMMENTARIES, supra note 90, at 51. He then discussed at length U.S. statutes granting birth citizenship without using the phrase “natural born.” Id. at 51-53. Rawle declared that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens under the eligibility clause, but did not say anything about those born outside the United States. RAWLE, VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION, supra note 90, at 86. 98 Laws of Virginia, May 1779, Chap. LV, 10 WILLIAM HENING, THE STATUTES AT LARGE OF VIRGINIA 129 (1822).
Shall hereafter migrate into the same, other than alien enemies, and shall before any court of record, give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation that they intend to reside therein; and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father if living, or otherwise whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth …shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth…99 This provision was modified somewhat in a new act in 1783 that declared among other things that “all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth … and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth…”100 The Virginia statutes did not use the phrase “natural born,” but they recognized citizenship at birth both in the sense of English common law (birth in the territory, without restriction as to the parents’ citizenship) and citizenship at birth by statutory extension to those born abroad to citizen parents. Although there is no direct evidence that Virginians regarded the latter category as “natural born,” the Virginia statutes paralleled the English citizenship statutes, and under the English statutes the foreign-born subjects-at-birth were called “natural born.” It would have been odd for Virginians to develop a different definition. In sum, the best view is that “natural born” in the eligibility clause meant what it meant in contemporaneous English law, taken as a whole. That raises this project’s most difficult question: what did it mean? Did it mean precisely the contours of “natural born” as defined by common law and statute in 1787-88? Or did it mean more broadly the common law definition as modified from time to time by statute?101 In considering this question, it becomes essential to consider the role of Congress’ naturalization power. IV. The Naturalization Clause and Congress’ “Natural Born” Power A. Congress’ Power to Define “Natural Born” To restate, this article has concluded so far that (i) the phrase “natural born” in the eligibility clause can be defined by looking to that phrase’s meaning in contemporaneous English law, and (ii) English law, in this context, should be understood as English law generally, including both common law and statutory law. 99 Id. 100 An act for the admission of emigrants and declaring their right to citizenship, Laws of Virginia, October 1783, 11 WILLIAM HENING, THE STATUTES AT LARGE OF VIRGINIA 322, 323 (1822). 101 As noted, the Clement/Katyal essay wholly elides this question by (incorrectly) describing eighteenthcentury English statutory law as providing natural-born subject status to all “children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown.” Clement & Katyal, supra note 4, at 1.
One might suppose, then, that this assessment would yield a decisive result. English law in 1787-88 was clear. “Natural born” included persons who were born subjects under common law – meaning essentially all persons born within sovereign territory (except children of foreign sovereigns, diplomats and invading soldiers) plus a small category of persons born abroad (children of English monarchs and diplomats). “Natural born” also included a category of persons who were declared to be born subjects by statute, namely those born abroad with English fathers or grandfathers. It did not extend any further. Translated to U.S. terms in the eligibility clause, this would seem to mean that only persons meeting this description would be eligible to the presidency – most notably, in terms of modern law, excluding those born abroad with only citizen mothers. This view, however, misunderstands the nature of parliament’s power over naturalization, and correspondingly misunderstands Congress’ power under the naturalization clause. The lesson of developments in eighteenth-century English statutory law in this area was that “natural born” was not a fixed concept, but rather was amenable to parliamentary modification, at least at the margins. The history of parliament’s role in the definition showed that parliament made frequent adjustments, in both directions. Parliament began with statutory adjustments for birth abroad that were very precise in time and category, but which allowed either a father or a mother who was a subject to be sufficient. The 1708 statute appeared to open the definition of “natural born” to anyone born aboard of an English parent, and indeed to any foreign protestant, but the latter provision was repealed after only three years, and the 1731 statute cut it back further to only those foreign-born with an English father; the 1773 statute then extended “natural born” to those with an English grandfather.102 In short, there was no longstanding statutory definition. The definition was subject to continual parliamentary adjustment. Or, put another way, the definition was what parliament said from time to time. Moreover, it is clear that parliament was not merely codifying a pre-existing common law, or even attempting to implement its own conclusions about natural law. Rather, the eighteenth-century extensions (and cut backs) were instrumental, explained in terms of the nation’s desire to promote overseas trade and travel, to expand its wealth, and to lure productive citizens to its territory. Well before 1787-88, therefore, the English understanding of “natural born” had lost its traditional connection with natural law and natural allegiance; it was a status parliament could convey based on the circumstances of birth. It had, in other words, become something of a redundancy: “natural” no longer carried independent meaning within the phrase. A natural born subject was simply someone born a subject, by the operation of common law or statutory law. Or, put another way, the 1787-88 English law meaning of “natural born” was the common law definition as modified from time to time by statute. As a result, it is extremely important that under the U.S. Constitution Congress has “Power …To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”103 The most obvious 102 See supra part II.B. 103 U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8.
Marker for the scope of this power is parliament’s power of naturalization. In modern American discourse, “naturalization” is often understood as the power to extend U.S. citizenship to foreign citizens on an individualized basis. That, however, was not a full description of the power as understood in the eighteenth century (although it included that power). In addition to individualized grants of citizenship, “naturalization” in English law referred to statutes that made categories of persons English citizens.104 That is, “naturalization” meant a process that made someone a citizen who was not a citizen under common law. This is indeed the origin of the word: a person who was a citizen under common law was a “natural” citizen; a person made a citizen by statute was made as if they were a natural citizen – hence, naturalized. Crucially, all of the eighteenth-century statutes that declared a class of persons to be “natural born” subjects were called acts of naturalization.105 As a result, there is no doubt that parliament’s power of naturalization included the power to declare categories of natural born subjects beyond the traditional common law. Somewhat confusingly, in terms of modern usage, these persons were both “natural born” and “naturalized.” Applied to the U.S. Constitution, the implication of the English law terminology is clear. Congress’ power of “naturalization,” like parliament’s power, includes both the power to establish rules for naturalizing foreign citizens on an individualized basis and the power to declare categories of persons citizens by the circumstances of their birth. And the latter power includes the power to define certain categories as “natural born” (a phrase that in eighteenth-century English law had little practical effect, but which took on new significance in U.S. law as a result of the eligibility clause). This interpretation is consistent with what would otherwise be two oddities about the eligibility clause. First, it explains the 1790 Naturalization Act, which declared that children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents were “natural born” citizens.106 The Act’s definition did not exactly track any of the English or continental definitions of “natural born”: under English common law such persons were not considered “natural born;” 107 under English statutory law as explained by Blackstone108 and under Vattel’s law-ofnations theory109 they were “natural born” if but only if their fathers were natural born citizens.110 Thus Congress did not seem to be adopting any existing definition, but rather creating its own definition. In this sense, it was acting entirely consistently with Blackstone’s description of “natural born” as open to statutory definition (even though Congress did not adopt the exact definition of English statutory law).111 The 1790 Act is 104 See HENRIQUES, THE LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 34-41 (discussing both powers). 105 See supra part II.B. 106 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. 107 See supra part II.A. 108 See supra part II.B. 109 See supra part II.C. 110 As noted, the 1790 Act is ambiguous as to whether it meant both parents or only one parent had to be a U.S. citizen, but in either event it was not precisely parallel with English law or law-of-nations theory. 111 Congress’ definition resembled Virginia’s citizenship statute, which gave birth citizenship to anyone born abroad with at least one citizen parent, see supra nn. 96-98, although Virginia did not use the phrase “natural born.”
Hard to explain on any other theory (aside from the claim that Congress acted unconstitutionally).112 Further, the “natural born” portion of the 1790 Act is not easily understood as the exercise of any constitutionally delegated power apart from the naturalization power. It is extremely likely that Congress saw the naturalization power as its source, as the Act was titled an act “to provide a uniform rule of naturalization” (exactly tracking the constitutional language), and the provisions on natural birth appear after a series of provisions describing how foreign citizens may become U.S. citizens (the more common understanding of “naturalization”).113 Moreover, Congress declared foreign-born children of U.S. citizens not merely to be U.S. citizens, but to be natural born U.S. citizens.114 Congress thus must have believed the naturalization power extended to declarations of “natural born” status. Without a full understanding of English statutory practice, that conclusion might seem odd, but in light of parliament’s naturalization acts it makes perfect sense. The 1790 Congress evidently understood that parliament’s naturalization power (and thus its own naturalization power) included the power to declare categories of persons to be natural born citizens. Second, a textual puzzle of the eligibility clause is why the drafters used the phase “natural born.” Presumably they knew that it had a somewhat ambiguous definition – this would be apparent from a quick read of Blackstone and Vattel, who defined it differently. If they meant “persons born in the United States” it would have been much easier to simply say so. A plausible explanation is that they deliberately picked a phrase that they knew (from English practice) had some flexibility for statutory definition, but would still protect against the particular threats they were trying to avoid.115 If they thought it important for the President to have some life-long connection to the United States but also thought this could be established in some circumstances for those born abroad, using a phrase somewhat subject to legislative definition would serve them well. In sum, then, the key to the eligibility clause is not just its own language, but Congress’ Article I, Section 8 power over naturalization. In English law the naturalization power included the power to define who was “natural born.” Absent indications to the contrary, Congress’ naturalization power should have the same scope – a point born out by the 1790 Naturalization Act. Later interpreters who have looked for a 112 To be sure, the First Congress did pass some unconstitutional provisions. But in this case, where the constitutional language is ambiguous on its face, the First Congress’ actions seem relevant evidence of the proper interpretation. 113 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. 114 Id. 115 An alternative explanation might be that (assuming one credits the theory that the language originated with Jay) is that Jay did not want to limit eligibility to persons born in the United States. Several of his children were born abroad. But, since they were born while was serving as a diplomatic agent of the United States, they would have been considered natural born citizens even under the traditional common law definition of “natural born.
Meaning of “natural born” in the eligibility clause alone have been looking in the wrong place. B. Limits on Congress’ Power to Define “Natural Born” While Congress thus appears to have power to define natural birth, we should also consider possible limits on that power. The Constitution’s framers might have conveyed an unlimited power on Congress, but that seems unlikely. In particular, it is not clear that Congress’ possession of an unlimited power would resolve the problems of foreign intrigue. If a person born and raised a foreigner could be made eligible simply by having enough supporters in Congress to redefine his status, that would seem to heighten rather than ameliorate the problem of foreign intrigue.116 English practice suggests at least two important limits on Congress’ power, however. First, it is doubtful that Congress could convey natural born status on persons with no connections to the United States at birth. With one salient exception, Parliament never claimed this power. The “natural born” statutes of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries addressed persons who had material connections to England, namely that their parents or grandparents were English subjects.117 Other statutes declared categories of persons who had no connection to England at birth to be English citizens, but these did not use the term “natural born.”118 The one exception to this pattern tends to prove the rule. In the 1708 Naturalization Act, Parliament declared all European Protestants, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, to be natural born English subjects.119 This gesture proved immediately unsatisfactory, was quickly repealed and not repeated.120 As noted, subsequent statutes making subjects of persons with no birth connections to England did not declare those persons to be “natural born.”121 Second, it is doubtful that Congress could convey natural born status on a particular individual without similarly making all similarly situated persons equally eligible. Again, Parliament did not exercise its naturalization power in this way. Some English naturalization acts did declare certain persons by name to be natural born subjects, but they went on to convey equivalent status on all persons similarly situated.122 116 That is especially true because English practice does not indicate a limit on retroactivity. As discussed, English statutes routinely conveyed natural born status on categories of person already born. See supra part II.B. 117 See supra Part II.B. 118 See 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363 (discussing statutes naturalizing certain foreign seamen and certain non-English residents in the American colonies). 119 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5 (1708), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 63 (1822) (1963 reprint); see supra note 51 and accompanying text (discussing this statute). 120 See 10 Anne ch. 9 (1711), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 557 (1822) (1963 reprint); 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363. 121 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363. 122 See supra Part II.B. This limit also may be suggested by the naturalization clause, which only gives Congress power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. See U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4.
In contrast, when parliament individually naturalized a foreign citizen, it did not declare them natural born. Recognizing these limits on Congress’ naturalization power would prevent the intrigues that concerned the framers, while leaving Congress substantial definitional flexibility. To take the example of Baron von Steuben, whom Professor Thach thought John Jay had in mind in first suggesting the eligibility clause:123 Steuben was born in Germany of non-U.S. parents and with no connection to the United States. He later came to the United States and gained fame as an aide to Washington in the Revolutionary War.124 Under no plausible definition of “natural born” was he a “natural born citizen.” Once the Constitution took effect, Congress could have made him a naturalized citizen at any time, but could not have made him a “natural born” citizen.125 Similarly, to the extent there was concern over rumored invitations to foreign nobles to assume the presidency, again the requirement of “natural born,” even if subject to legislative definition, would preclude such intrigues in a way that a mere citizenship requirement would not. As a result, though Congress has broad power to define who is natural born under its naturalization power, English practice and the purposes of the eligibility clause suggest that Congress can only exercise that power with respect to categories of persons with some material connection to the United States at birth.126 primary meaning of that phrase was not doubt to contrast with the non-uniform practices of the states, it may also suggest that a naturalization rule must be equally applicable to similarly situated persons. 123 See supra n. 25. 124 See PAUL DOUGLAS LOCKHART, THE DRILLMASTER OF VALLEY FORGE: THE BARON DE STEUBEN AND THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAN ARMY (2008). 125 In fact, however, von Steuben was a citizen of the United States at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, having been made a citizen of both Pennsylvania and New York. See LOCKHART, supra note 124. Thus he was eligible to the presidency under the final version of the Constitution; it is not clear if Jay knew von Steuben was a citizen, and in any event the alternative eligibility rule was not in Jay’s proposal. 126 A related puzzle is whether Congress could declare certain categories of persons not to be natural born citizens. As to persons not natural born under common law, the likely answer is yes. English statutory practice both expanded and contracted the definition of “natural born” over the course of the eighteenth century. See supra Part I. As to persons who had natural born status under common law, the question is more difficult, but there is no direct English precedent for doing so, and in any event the question appears to have been mooted by the Fourteenth Amendment’s declaration that all persons born in the United States are citizens. A further difficulty in modern law is that the current naturalization law declares most persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent to be U.S. citizens, but it does not declare that they are “natural born” citizens. As discussed, the 1790 Naturalization Act used the phrase “natural born” in this context, but that language was dropped in the 1795 Act; subsequent enactments have followed the 1795 Act in this regard. Thus, while Congress has power to declare persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent to be “natural born” citizens, perhaps it has not done so. A full examination of this question is beyond the scope of this article; it is worth noting, however, that Congress seems plainly to understand its Act as making persons who are citizens at birth eligible to the presidency. See, e.g., S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008) (unanimously finding John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone and thus arguably outside U.S. territory, to be a natural born citizen by prior statute). The resolution generally refers to the children of Americans serving in the military (not just those in McCain’s situation) and specifically notes the 1790 citizenship act. As a result, it seems clear that the resolution based its conclusions on McCain’s birth abroad to U.S. parents.
Conclusion
Conventional wisdom holds that a “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s eligibility clause means anyone who is made a U.S. citizen at birth under then-existing statutory language. However, that is not the most obvious reading of the clause. The Constitution’s reference to “natural” citizenship appears on its face to be a reference to citizenship conveyed by natural law (exactly the opposite of citizenship conveyed by statute). That has in turn led to considerable debate about the eighteenth-century “natural” law of citizenship, which is in turn uncertain depending on whether one looks at English common law, English statutory law, or law-of-nations principles espoused by writers such as Vattel. However, little direct evidence exists as to which view of natural law the framers might have held. Under this line of inquiry, the better conclusion may be that the clause is fatally ambiguous as to certain groups of citizens – a position suggested or embraced by several leading scholars.127 As set forth above, careful review of the phrase’s history suggests that the conventional view is the best one, although the argument is more difficult and complex than the conventional view acknowledges. The decisive fact about the phrase “natural born” is that it had commonly appeared in English statutes throughout the lateseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In traditional English common law, “natural born” (applied to “subjects”) meant (with minor exceptions) born within English territory. However, beginning in 1677, and continuing up to the framers’ time, parliament had expanded that definition by statute to include some persons born abroad with English parents. Crucially, parliament had not merely extended the rights of natural born subjects to these new categories, but had declared that persons in the new categories were natural born subjects. As Blackstone put it, children so designated by statute “are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.”128 This English practice was known to the framers (at minimum, through Blackstone’s description). And absent any other conclusive definition of the phrase, it seems conclusive in itself. The framers knew that in English law “natural born” had a core meaning of birth within sovereign territory, but was subject to statutory expansion to include those born overseas with what parliament considered a sufficient connection to the nation. The best reading of the clause is that this is the constitutional meaning as well.129 127 See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 12; Jacobson, natural born Citizens, supra note 6. 128 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 361. 129 This reading is consistent with the clause’s apparent purpose, which was to bar from the presidency people who lacked longstanding attachment to the United States. Like people born in the United States, people born of U.S. parents abroad have an attachment to the United States from birth. The framers’ concern was with people who only became U.S. citizens later in life, who thus (they feared, perhaps unreasonably) might have more attachment to foreign interests, and in particular might scheme to establish foreign rule. See supra nn. 22-34 & accompanying text.
This approach is strongly reinforced by the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The English statutes declaring certain categories of people to be natural born, even if not born in England, were called naturalization acts. Thus eighteenth-century readers would understand the naturalization power to include the power (within certain limits) to define the scope of “natural” birth. As a result, somewhat counter-intuitively, “natural” born does at least to some extent depend on statutory law. Notably, this reading (and only this reading) supports the modern view that all persons defined as citizens at birth by statute are “natural born.” In particular, the modern citizenship statute defines most persons born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother and a non-citizen father to be U.S. citizens at birth. That status is not consistent with the meaning of “natural born” in English common law or in law-of-nations theory; nor was it the case under late-eighteenth-century English statutory law (which gave those born abroad “natural born” status only if their fathers were natural born). But so long as we see that “natural born” was subject to statutory expansion under the naturalization power, the fact that modern birthright citizenship does not accord in all particulars with eighteenth-century birthright citizenship is not problematic. In sum, as conventional wisdom holds, the best reading of the original meaning of the eligibility clause is that any person defined as a citizen at birth by the Constitution or a statute is eligible to the presidency. The proof, however, is much more difficult than conventional wisdom supposes.
Michael D. Ramsey
University of San Diego School of Law
January 7, 2016
The Original Meaning of “Natural Born” Michael D. Ramsey* Modern conventional wisdom generally holds that the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause1 includes anyone made a U.S. citizen at birth by U.S. statutes or the Constitution.2 A U.S. statute makes most people born outside the United States to at least one U.S. citizen parent citizens at birth;3 thus people in this category – along with those born within the United States and thus citizens under the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment – are thought to be eligible. According to a recent essay by two prominent commentators, “the relevant materials clearly indicate … that the original meaning of the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.”4 But that conventional wisdom rests on surprisingly thin scholarly foundations and faces daunting textual and historical challenges. If anyone born a U.S. citizen is eligible to the presidency, the word “natural” in the eligibility clause is superfluous. To give it meaning, there should be some “born” citizens who are not “natural born.” Further, in general in eighteenth-century legal language, natural meant the opposite of “provided by statute.” Natural law was the opposite of positive law; natural rights were rights that predated codification. The most obvious meaning of “natural born Citizen” thus is not a person who claims citizenship from a statute, but rather a person whose citizenship comes from the natural state of things. Moreover, despite the confident ring of the conventional wisdom, there are essential no sustained scholarly defenses of it. Its leading recent affirmation is only four pages long.5 To the contrary, the few scholarly articles to address the clause have found it mysterious and ambiguous.6 *Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law and Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego Law School. Thanks to Randy Barnett, Richard Izquierdo, Michael Rappaport, Thomas Lee, Lawrence Solum and the participants in the Georgetown Law Center constitutional colloquium for helpful comments. The author was born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents. 1 U.S. CONST. Art. II, Sec. 1. 2 See JACK MESKELL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT AND THE “NATURAL BORN” CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT (Congressional Research Service 2011), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf; see id. at 50 (the “majority of scholarship on the subject” holds that birth abroad to at least one citizen parent is sufficient for natural born citizen status). 3 Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended, § 301, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. 4 Paul Clement & Neal Katyal, On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” 128 HARV. L. REV. F. 161 (2015) (discussing presidential candidate Ted Cruz). See also AKHIL AMAR, AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION: A BIOGRAPHY 164-66 (2005) (equating “natural born Citizen” with “citizen at the time of his birth.” 5 See Clement & Katyal, supra note 4. Clement and Katyal principally rely on eighteenth-century British statutes, which, they say, “provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire with “natural born Subjects…” Id. at 1. But as explained below, see infra Part II, these statutes only applied to persons whose fathers (or paternal grandfathers) were British subjects. Modern U.S. law allows persons born abroad to claim birthright U.S. citizenship through their mothers as well. 6 See, e.g., Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 22 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf, updated
The lack of firm support for the conventional view has potentially serious consequences, even to the point of constitutional crisis. In an era of globalization, more Americans are likely to have children overseas who aspire to the nation’s highest office. One presidential nominee in 2008 was born in the Canal Zone7 while the other was rumored (falsely) to have been born in Kenya. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, currently seeking the Republican Party nomination for President, was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-citizen father.8 It is not unlikely that in our era a person will be elected who is arguably not eligible. A thorough investigation of the eligibility clause’s original meaning seems not merely an intriguing academic exercise but a practical necessity. That is particularly true because at least two strong challenges to the conventional wisdom have emerged in popular literature, arguing for substantially narrower interpretations. One of these contends – consistent with the ordinary meaning of “natural” – that only persons born within the United States are “natural” citizens; others are mere statutory citizens, and thus ineligible to the presidency. A second contends that the framers’ idea of “natural born” citizenship arose from the work of the great Swiss writer Emer de Vattel, whose treatise on the law of nations was enormously influential at the founding. 9 Vattel adopted the common European view, derived from Roman law, of citizenship by inheritance rather than birth: “natural” citizenship was passed from father to child, regardless of the child’s place of birth. In this view, then, even some people born in the United States would not be eligible to be President, while some born overseas (but not all those made citizens by modern law) would be. version available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885 (revised 2010). Other leading scholarship on the clause emphasizes the difficulty of interpreting it: Malinda Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 BYU L. REV. 927 (2005); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 YALE L.J. 881 (1988); Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 PRESID. STUD. Q. 383 (1987); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MARYLAND L. REV. 1 (1968). While modern published scholarship is scarce, several recent online publications have the character, depth and significance of law review articles, including William Jacobson, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, LEGAL INSURRECTION, Sept. 3, 2013, available at http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ (also finding the clause to be ambiguous). 7 Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 1 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.pdf.; Stephen E. Sachs, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 49 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/sachs.pdf; Peter J. Spiro, McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method, 107 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 42 (2008);
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/spiro.pdf 8 See Angie Drobnic Holan, Is Ted Cruz, Born in Canada, Eligible to Run for President?, POLITIFACT, August 20, 2013, available at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-borncanada-eligible-run-president/ 9 EMER DE VATTEL, DROIT DES GENS [THE LAW OF NATIONS] (1758).
This article concludes that the conventional view is probably correct as a matter of the Constitution’s original meaning, but that the argument is complicated and not entirely free from doubt. As suggested above, the text seems to point in the opposite direction, toward an idea of “natural” citizenship arising from some connection to the nation apart from mere statutory status. The drafting and ratifying history is unhelpful, as the clause was rarely discussed, and only in general terms. Similarly, post-ratification discussions are inconclusive, or appear to point in different directions. On the basis of the text and the most frequently consulted founding-era sources, the phrase appears to refer to a “natural” relationship to the nation that was incompletely articulated, or perhaps incompletely understood. One might be tempted to stop there and declare the clause fatally ambiguous.10 This article argues, however, that meaning can be found in pre-constitutional sources, chiefly in the idea of “natural born subjects” in English law. In brief, traditional English law reflected an idea of “natural” birth within the allegiance of the king, based only on birth within the king’s territory (with minor exceptions). These people were called “natural born subjects.” Since the late seventeenth century, however, parliament had extended “natural born subject” status to certain persons born abroad to English parents. Crucially, parliament did not merely give these persons the rights of natural born subjects; it declared them to be natural born subjects. As a result, by the late eighteenth century, in English law the phrase “natural born” – contrary to its traditional meaning – had come to include those given subject status at birth by statute. This article further argues that this understanding of “natural born” is the one most likely recognized by the Constitution’s framers. The relevant features of English law were known in America through Blackstone’s widely read treatise.11 Founding era and post-founding sources demonstrate that American citizenship law was strongly influenced by its English predecessor; although American commentators did not make clear their precise understanding of “natural born,” the most likely meaning seems to be the meaning it had in English law. This understanding is strongly reinforced by the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”12 The English statutes declaring certain categories of people to be natural born, even if not born in England, 10 That is, ambiguous in its application to certain categories of people. See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 5-6 (noting that most people are unambiguously covered or not covered by the clause, but finding that the clause might be ambiguous as to those with some, but not complete, connection to the United States at birth). The Fourteenth Amendment is not immediately relevant to the meaning of the eligibility clause. It was ratified much later (in 1868) and does not purport to address the meaning of “natural born” citizen or the scope of presidential eligibility. Although it establishes a class of people whose birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution and thus cannot be altered by statute, it does not preclude additional classes of people being given birthright citizenship by statute, and Congress has consistently recognized citizenship at birth beyond the constitutional minimum of the Amendment. On its own, the Fourteenth Amendment neither assures that everyone within its protection is “natural born” nor excludes those outside its protection from being “natural born.” 11 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1765). 12 U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4.
Were called naturalization acts, and thus were understood as exercises of parliament’s naturalization power. Absent indications to the contrary, the best guide to the scope of Congress’ naturalization power is the scope of parliament’s naturalization power. Recovering this meaning highlights the underappreciated connection between the Article II’s eligibility clause and Article I’s naturalization clause. As English practice makes clear, the power granted by the latter includes (within limits) the power to define the meaning of the former. The last point is crucial, because eighteenth-century English statutes did not recognize all persons born abroad with English parents to be natural born subjects; they recognized such a status for persons whose fathers (and, after 1778, paternal grandfathers) were English subjects.13 Modern U.S. law also grants citizenship at birth to most persons (such as Senator Cruz) born abroad with U.S. citizen mothers but not U.S. citizen fathers.14 If people in Senator Cruz’s category are eligible to the presidency, it cannot be because the American framers adopted the English rule in effect at the time of the founding. Rather, it is because the Framers conveyed to Congress, through the naturalization clause, the power to define “natural” birth. The ensuing discussion proceeds as follows. Part I considers the eligibility clause’s text and drafting history, finding that little conclusive can be found within it. Part II explores the legal background of the phrase “natural born,” particularly its definition in English common law, English statutory law, and the law-of-nations theory of Vattel. Part III argues that the weight of available evidence shows the founding generation in America to have been most strongly influenced by English law rather than Vattel, and by the whole of English law rather than just its common law antecedents. Part IV concludes that the most likely meaning of the eligibility clause combined with the naturalization clause is that they adopted the English practice of a core common law definition subject to modification by statute – a reading that confirms the modern understanding of eligibility. I. The Constitution’s Text and Drafting History The presidential eligibility clause provides: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.15 The clause thus creates two categories of eligible citizens (albeit only one relevant in modern times): (1) persons who are natural born citizens, and (2) persons who were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Some interpreters have 13 See infra, part II. 14 Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended, § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. 15 U.S. CONST. Art. II, §1.
Purported to be confused by the comma after “United States,” which under modern grammatical conventions indicates that the phrase “at the Adoption of this Constitution” modifies both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” However this confusion seems misguided. As other sections of the Constitution indicate, the framers had different and looser rules regarding comma placement than we do; moreover, attaching significance to the comma creates a manifestly absurd result – namely, that no person born after the adoption of the Constitution would be eligible to be President. That leaves the question of the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” According to a comprehensive study by the Congressional Research Service, the phrase means any person who is a U.S. citizen by birth, including those whose citizenship is granted by statute. 16 This broad view, however, is in substantial tension with the clause’s text on two grounds. First, reading the clause in this way violates the surplusage canon, which holds that in textual interpretation all words in a text should be given meaning.17 If all persons who are born citizens are eligible, the word “natural” has no effect. The framers could as well have written “No person except a born Citizen” (or perhaps “No person except one born a Citizen”) shall be eligible. An interpretation of the clause should therefore strive to find some meaning of the word natural.18 Second, giving “natural” its ordinary legal meaning suggests the exact opposite of the conventional conclusion regarding citizenship derived from statutes. In eighteenthcentury legal language “natural” meant arising from the nature of things19 – a usage reflected, for example, in natural law (as opposed to statutory law) and natural rights (as opposed to statutory rights). Under this common meaning of natural, “natural” citizenship should be distinct from – not coextensive with – statutory citizenship. Neither of these observations provides direct evidence of the phrase’s meaning, but they do suggest that the modern assumed meaning, at minimum, requires further explanation and support. On its face, the eligibility clause does not make all born citizens eligible to the Presidency. The critical question is the eighteenth-century understanding of “natural” born. 16 MESKELL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 6, at 50. 17 ANTONIN SCALIA AND BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 174-75 (2012). 18 Alexander Hamilton’s written plan for the Constitution, which he gave to Madison near the close of the Convention, had a presidential eligibility clause similar to the one adopted in the Constitution but omitting the word “natural”: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.” Hamilton Plan, Art. IX, §1, 3 RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 619, 629 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1938) [hereinafter FARRAND, RECORDS]. That appears to provide exactly what the modern consensus thinks the eligibility clause provides. However, the actual text does not say “born a citizen” but instead adopted (without explanation) the phrase “natural born.” Perhaps it was understood as a synonym, but that is far from obvious. 19 See JOHN ASH, NEW AND COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1775); SAMUEL JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755); NATHAN BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1721).
The most common indicators of textual meaning – the drafting and ratifying history – are not helpful in finding a conclusive meaning. The initial draft of presidential eligibility came from the Committee of Detail’s August 22, 1787, report, and called only for the President to be “of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant thereof for Twenty one years.”20 The “natural born” language first appeared in the Committee of Eleven report on September 4, in substantially its current form, 21 without explanation, and apparently it was not debated by the Convention: The Committee of Eleven did not explain why this new language had been added. The Convention approved this portion of the proposals without debate. The draft Constitution was then referred to a second Committee of Five, known as the Committee on Style and Arrangement or the Committee on Revision. That Committee retained the presidential qualification clause without comment, and without substantial change. It was adopted in this form, and without any debate, by the Convention. Indeed, no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberations of the Convention.22 There is some evidence, though, that the phrase had its origins with Secretary of Foreign Affairs (and future Federalist co-author) John Jay, who was not at the Convention. Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, the chair of the Convention, on July 25, 1787, making the following suggestion: Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. 23 Jay did not elaborate what he meant by “natural born Citizen.” On September 2, shortly before the phrase appeared in the Committee draft, and Washington replied, thanking Jay for “the hints contained in your letter.”24 As one commentator concludes: 20 2 FARRAND, RECORDS, at 367. The Committee of Detail’s initial report, which had no presidential eligibility requirements, was delivered to the Convention on August 6, see id. at 176, and several additional matters (although not presidential eligibility specifically) were referred back to the Committee on August 18 and 20, see id. at 333, 342-43. The Committee then issued an additional report on August 22, recommending eligibility requirements. 21 2 id. at 498. The Committee of Eleven, composed of one person from each of the eleven states then in attendance, was charged with resolving important matters that remained outstanding after the Convention considered the Committee of Detail report. 22 Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States, supra note 6, at 5. 23 Jay to Washington, July 25,1787, 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 61. See CHARLES THACH, THE CREATION OF THE PRESIDENCY 1775-1789, at 137 (1923). 24 Washington to John Jay, September 2, 1787, 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 76.
Because the second version of the presidential requirements came a mere two days following Jay’s letter to Washington and was adopted without discussion, and considering Washington’s considerable presence at the convention, it is entirely possible that Jay’s reasons for including the natural-born requirement were the primary motivations behind the provision: namely, fear of foreign dominance of government.25 Some writers have gone further to speculate that Jay had a particular person in mind for exclusion: Baron von Steuben, the Prussian officer who had been a principal aide to General Washington during the Revolutionary War, but who was regarded as untrustworthy as a result of some subsequent activities.26 (Jay was thinking only of the office of Commander-in-Chief; because the Philadelphia proceedings were secret, he did not know that the Convention had decided to create a President who was also Commander-in-Chief). Other historical studies suggest that the framers’ motivation was more broadly a concern over the ambitions of foreign aristocrats and would-be monarchs.27 Professor Akhil Amar, for example, emphasizes the framers’ worries that foreign noblemen might seek to become the American monarch, and notes that England had twice invited a foreign aristocrat to become king (William III and George I).28 Requiring natural born citizenship, rather than just citizenship, would avoid intrigues to naturalize favored foreigners (and potential monarchs): The apparent purposes of this citizenship clause were thus to assure the requisite fealty and allegiance to the nation from the person to be the chief executive of the United States, and to prevent wealthy foreign citizens, and particularly wealthy foreign royalty and their relatives, from coming to the United States, becoming naturalized citizens, and then scheming and buying their way into the Presidency or creating an American monarchy.29 Early commentary confirms the clause’s basic purpose. Convention delegate Charles Pinckney later commented that the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to “insure … attachment to the country.”30 St. George Tucker, writing in 1803, described the clause as “a happy means of security against foreign influence” 25 See Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, supra note 6, at 937-38. 26 THACH, CREATION OF THE PRESIDENCY, supra note 23, at 137 (“The name of [Baron] von Steuben is not mentioned, but there can be little doubt that it was he … with his sympathies for the followers of Shay, and his evidently suspected dealings with Prince Henry of Prussia, whom Jay had in mind when he penned these words. The silent insertion of the clause in a committee where matters could be managed quietly tends to confirm the conjecture.”). 27 E.g., AMAR, AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION, supra note 4, at 164-165. 28 Id. at 165 (noting these fears and referring to the eligibility clause as “lay[ing] to rest public anxieties about foreign monarchs.”). See also id. (“Out of an abundance of caution – paranoia, perhaps – the framing generation barred not only European-style titles of nobility, but also European noblemen themselves (along with all other future immigrants) from America’s most powerful and dangerous office.”). 29 MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 2, at 8. 30 3 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 387 (speech to U.S. Senate, Mar. 28, 1800).
And as “guarding against” the “admission of foreigners into our councils.”31 Although not speaking specifically of the eligibility clause, in Federalist 68 Alexander Hamilton – discussing selection of the President – warned against “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”32 Writing somewhat later, in 1833, Joseph Story echoed these views: It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States ... [T]he general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.33 While plausible, these observations provide limited insight into the details of the clause’s meaning. It seems clear that the phrase was intended to place a higher bar on presidential eligibility than the Convention had placed on eligibility for Congress, whose members merely had to be U.S. citizens for seven and nine years for the House and Senate respectively.34 The events surrounding the drafting indicate a paradigm case of exclusion – persons lacking any plausible connections to the United States at birth – but standing alone they are not helpful in determining what connections would be sufficient. In particular, they do not make clear whether statutory citizenship at birth would be sufficient. It also does not appear that there was any material discussion of the clause in the ratification debates. And the one near-contemporaneous comment by James Madison is ambiguous. In connection with the 1789 debate over the eligibility of William Smith to be a member of Congress, Madison emphasized that Smith had been born in the United States and observed: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; 31 1 ST. GEORGE TUCKER. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, at App. 316-29 (1803). 32 Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton), in ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JAMES MADISON & JOHN JAY, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, at 412 (1788) (Clinton Rossiter ed. 1961). 33 3 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 332-33 (1833). 34 U.S. CONST. Art. I, §§ 2 & 3. In an earlier debate on August 13, Elbridge Gerry, speaking of the eligibility of members of Congress, had said that he “wished that in the future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes …” 2 FARRAND, RECORDS, supra note 18, at 268. Madison and Hamilton objected on the other side and moved to eliminate the restrictions altogether. Gerry’s suggestion did not come to a vote; the Hamilton/Madison motion was voted down, along with several others. Id. at 368-73. See John M. Yinger, The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen" and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees? (2000), available at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm (discussing this debate).
But, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States ....”35 While Madison emphasized birth within the United States, questions about extraterritorial birth were not raised and it seems that he deliberately avoided the issue. A further consideration is that in 1790, Congress enacted a naturalization statute, pursuant to its Article I, Section 8 power to provide a uniform rule of naturalization. In addition to specifying the method by which aliens could be naturalized, the statute provided: And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…36 One might take the 1790 act as indicative of the Constitution’s original meaning, at least to the extent that the First Congress believed it had power to define natural born citizen in this way.37 But no one in Congress explained the basis for such a belief or the extent of the power Congress understood itself to have. Moreover, the 1790 Act was replaced five years later by a new naturalization act whose principal effect was to extend the residency period for aliens wishing to become citizens from two to five years. As to children of U.S. citizens, the new Act dropped the phrase “natural born citizen” and said only: the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States …38 The effect of the 1795 Act seems thoroughly ambiguous: was the key phrase “natural born” dropped inadvertently, dropped because Congress thought it was surplusage, or dropped because Congress had decided (for constitutional reasons or otherwise) that foreign-born children of U.S. parents should not be declared natural born? Nothing in the congressional debates indicates a satisfactory answer. 35 MATTHEW CLARKE & DAVID HALL, CASES OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS IN CONGRESS, FROM THE YEAR 1789 TO 1834, INCLUSIVE 33 (1834) (1st Cong., 1st Sess. (1789)); see MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 18, at 24 n. 111. Smith was born in what became the United States but his parents were loyalists who remained British subjects. 36 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. Some modern commentators have doubted Congress’ power to declare foreign-born children of U.S. parents to be U.S. citizens at birth. However, that objection seems insubstantial. As the English practice discussed in the next section shows, making a person a subject by statute, whether at birth or otherwise, was called “naturalization.” See infra part II.B. Thus Congress’ naturalization power undoubtedly extended to making a category of persons citizens at birth, as the 1790 Act did. The difficult question is whether Congress had power to declare them natural born citizens. 37 See Clement & Katyal, supra note 4, at 2 (relying on the 1790 statute). 38 An act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, § 3 (Jan. 29, 1795), 1 Stat. 414. Naturalization acts thereafter did not use “natural born.”
II. Three Foreign Sources of Eighteenth-Century Meaning The eligibility clause received little contemporaneous explanation by the founding generation. As a result, its meaning is best assessed by examination of eighteenthcentury legal traditions that might have influenced the framers’ understanding of it. Of these, there are three, which unfortunately point in somewhat different directions. A. English Common Law To begin, the phrase “natural born subject” had an established meaning in English39 law, and might reasonably be seen as a predecessor to the Constitution’s phrase “natural born Citizen.” Because the Constitution does not define most of its terms and uses phrases obviously drawn from contemporary legal language – ex post facto, habeas corpus, bill of attainder, and the like – the English legal background with which its drafters were familiar is rich source of meaning, often more useful and relevant than dictionaries, which defined terms often without reference to their legal contexts.40 As Chief Justice Taft later wrote, when considering the meaning of the pardon power: The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.41 39 For convenience I use “English” to refer to the law both before and after the 1707 union of the crowns of England and Scotland to form Great Britain. 40 The phrase “natural born” is not defined as a phrase (or otherwise used) in the leading eighteenth century dictionaries. See JOHN ASH, NEW AND COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1775); SAMUEL JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1755); NATHAN BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1721). Yet the phrase appears to be used as a term of art in legal enactments (indeed, in some versions it is hyphenated), thus making its meaning difficult to reconstruct from the individual words. In any event, the definitions of the individual words are unhelpful. For example, Johnson defined “Natural” as, among other things, “produced or effected by nature” and “native; original inhabitant.”; “Native” in turn he defined as both “one born in any place; original inhabitant” and “conferred by birth.” 2 JOHNSON, DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1349. Ash’s dictionary is to similar effect. Bailey’s 1765 edition defined “Naturalization” as “when one who is an alien, is made a natural Subject by an act of parliament.” BAILEY, DICTIONARY, at 566. Similarly Ash defined “Naturalize” as “to make natural … to invest a foreigner with the privileges of a native subject,” with “Native” defined (following Johnson) as both “one born in any place; original inhabitant” and “conferred by birth.” 2 ASH, COMPLETE DICTIONARY (definitions of “Natural,” “Naturalized” and “Native.”). 41 Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-109 (1925). See also Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390-91 (1798) (Chase, J.) “The prohibition that ‘no state shall pass any ex post facto law’ necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing. … The expressions ‘ ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors.”); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478
Under English common law, a natural born subject – consistent with the common legal meaning of “natural” – was one whose subjectship arose from the nature of things. As Blackstone explained: The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligence, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligament, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection with the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or a substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.42 Blackstone then noted some minor exceptions: When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot have two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.43 The principal common-law exception, Blackstone added, was that “the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.” 44 On the other hand, Blackstone added, “[t]he children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”45 (1888) (“The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”); Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000) (relying on Calder and the English common law meaning of “ex post facto” to interpret the ex post fact clause); MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 2, at 1-2 (noting relevance of eighteenth century common law to the eligibility clause under these precedents and explaining: “Although the English common law is not “binding” on federal courts in interpreting the meaning of words or phrases within the Constitution, nor is it necessarily to be considered the “law” of the United States (as it is for the individual states specifically incorporating it), it can be employed to shed light on the concepts and precepts within the document that are not defined there, but which are reflected in the corpus of British law and jurisprudence of the time.”); Clement & Katyal, supra note 2, at 1 (noting English common law as an important source of constitutional meaning). 42 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 354-55. 43 Id. at 361. 44 Id. 45 Id. at 361-62.
Thus anyone reading Blackstone (as the framers did) would understand English common law to view “natural born” as tied very closely to birth within English territory. As Blackstone explained, this was a “natural” relationship in that it arose not from an act of parliament but from the nature of the relationship between the person and the monarch: the monarch granted protection in return for allegiance.46 Although Blackstone was not always reliable in his accounts of English law, on this point his description conforms to later historical descriptions. One such account described the common law as follows: By the common law all persons born within the power or protection of the Crown owe natural allegiance to the King, and are natural-born subjects of the realm, while all born out to the allegiance or protection of the King are aliens born, and remain aliens unless they are subsequently made denizens or naturalized. For the law of England had always adopted to feudal or territorial principle of determining nationality by the place of birth alone …47 This account also confirmed Blackstone’s recognition of narrow exceptions for children of ambassadors, whose nationality was determined by that of their father, not of their place of birth, and the children or others who did not owe even temporary allegiance to the territorial sovereign: [A] person, though born within the realm may yet be an alien, if he is born in circumstances that he cannot be held from the moment of his birth to owe allegiance to the king. Such, for instance, are the children of persons who, by the comity of nations … are looking upon as being ex-territorial, e.g., a foreign sovereign or his ambassador or accredited minister; such also are the children of alien enemies, who, as members of an invading army, may have succeeded in occupying part of the King’s territory, for these cannot be considered to be even temporary subjects of the King, for where no protection can be claimed, no allegiance can be due.48 As numerous sources emphasize, these rules of English common law trace their traditional exposition to Calvin’s Case, 49 as reported by Sir Edward Coke in the early seventeenth century. The precise issue there was the status of a person born in Scotland 46 Id. at 354-55. This understanding comports with contemporary dictionary definitions of “natural” as that arising from nature. See supra n. 33. 47 HENRY S.Q. HENRIQUES, THE LAW OF ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION 29 (1923). See also id. at 62 (“the general effect [of the common law rule] is, that persons born within the dominions of the King, whether of English or foreign parents, are natural-born subjects, and that persons born without his dominions are aliens.”) 48 Id. at 29-30. See also id. at 62-63 (listing as “[p]ersons born within the Realm or other dominions of the King who are aliens born” as the children of a foreign sovereign, ambassador or other diplomat and children born in territory occupied by a hostile army); id. at 63 (listing as “[p]ersons born without the Dominions of the King who are Natural-Born Subjects at Common Law” as children of the English monarch and his ambassadors and diplomatic agents and children born “within the territory of a prince who is subject to and bound to do homage to the King of England.”). 49 Calvin’s Case [Calvin v. Smith], 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608).
After the Scottish king James also became king of England. The case, however, contains substantial discussion of the English common law of subjectship, setting forth the strong birth-within-sovereign territory approach repeated in Blackstone and later historical accounts.50 In sum, the traditional English common law was that a “natural born” subject was only one born within the territory of the king, with narrow exceptions for the children of ambassadors and other ministers, and of invading armies. The touchstone was birth under the protection of the sovereign, which the common law understood to arise (except in unusual circumstances) from presence in the monarch’s dominions. If that were the end of the pre-Convention story, one might plausibly argue that only birth within the United States could convey presidential eligibility. It is, however, not the end of the story. As described in the next section, in addition to the common law background England had a complicated statutory tradition defining the phrase “natural born.” B. The English Statutory Background. A bedrock principle of eighteenth-century English law was that Parliament could alter, extend and re-define the common law by statute. Despite the common law background of the phrase “natural born,” parliament had a long experience of statutory intervention. That is not surprising, for even in ancient times the common law rule created the practical oddity that the children of English subjects traveling or temporarily residing abroad were not English subjects even upon their (and their parents’) return to England. This condition had various difficulties attached, because under common law aliens could not own or inherent property and suffered other disqualifications.51 Of course, aliens could be “naturalized.” By this, it was initially meant that a change in status could be effected individually by acts of parliament making particular named persons English subjects.52 Presumably parliament commonly used this approach to resolve the problem of subjects’ children born abroad, as well as to make English subjects of aliens emigrating from their home countries. At least in the seventeenth century and earlier, persons naturalized in this way by statute apparently had all the rights of natural born citizens.53 50 See Polly Price, Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case, 9 YALE J. L. & HUM. 73 (1997). 51 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 360-61; HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 1-10. 52 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38-39 (noting an instance as early as the reign of Henry VI but finding that “private Acts of Parliament of this kind did not come into vogue until the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth.”). These private naturalization acts were common in the seventeenth century. See, e.g., 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 159-160 (1819) (1963 reprint) (listing “Private Acts” of 1695-96 as including various acts “for the naturalization of” individual named persons). See also authorities cited supra, n. 33 (defining “naturalized” as having been given by statute the rights of natural born subjects). 53 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38. As noted below, this full equivalence was changed by the Act of Settlement. See infra, nn. 62-63.
Parliament also altered the common law consequences of alienage on a general scale as early as the fourteenth century. As described above, the common law rule was that non-citizens could not inherit land, even from English-subject decedents (including their parents). In 1350, however, parliament provided first that “the Law ... is, and always hath been” that “Children of the Kings of England, in whatever Parts they be born, in England or elsewhere, be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the death of their ancestors.”54 It further provided that the children of certain named persons “which were born beyond the Sea, out of the Ligeance of England, shall be from henceforth able to have and enjoy their Inheritance after the death of their Ancestors, in all Parts within the Ligeance of England, as well as those that should be born within the same Ligeance.”55 Finally it provided: [A]ll Children Inheritors, which from henceforth shall be born without the Ligeance of the King, whose Fathers and Mothers at the Time of their Birth be and shall be at the Faith and Ligeance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same Benefits and Advantages, to have and bear the Inheritance within the same Ligeance, as the other inheritors as aforesaid in Time to come. 56 By this provision, then, parliament modified the effect of extraterritorial birth but did not use the phrase “natural born” nor purport to make subjects of aliens. So far, the statutory view accorded with the common law view (taking into account parliament’s ability to modify the common law): those born abroad, even with subject parents, remained aliens, but the consequences of their alienage were somewhat relaxed. The 1350 act did, however, begin to introduce the idea that those born abroad of subject parents merited some special consideration. Of greater significance was Parliament’s gradual claim, starting in the seventeenth century, to be able to modify the meaning of “natural born.” The seventeenth century posed rising challenges to the common law rule because, due to peculiar historical circumstances, unusually large numbers of children were born abroad to English parents. In particular, the turmoil of the mid-century Civil War drove many supporters of the Crown (and the heir to the Crown himself) abroad for a substantial amount of time, resulting in many more “English” children being born abroad. One may speculate that the system of private acts was too cumbersome to handle the post-Restoration demand for naturalization. In any event, after the Restoration, parliament in 1677 passed a statute, “An Act for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majestyes English Subjects Borne in English law also traditionally recognized the power of the monarch to make an alien into a “denizen,” which was a sort of intermediate status, in terms of rights, between an alien and a subject. See HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 38 (adding that “the King by his prerogative could not grant the full rights of a natural-born subject”). 54 A Statute for those who are born in Parts beyond the Sea, 25 Ed. III, st. 1 (1350), 1 STATUTES OF THE REALM 310 (1810) (1963 reprint). 55 Id. 56 Id.
Forreigne Countryes during the Late Troubles,” noting that numerous English subjects “did by reason of their attendance upon his Majestie or for feare of the then Usurped Powers reside in parts beyond the Seas out of his Majestyes Dominions.”57 The statute then declared that all persons: Who at any time betweene the fourteenth day of June in the said yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred forty one and the foure and twentieth day of March in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred and sixty were born out of his Majestyes Dominions and whose Fathers or Mothers were Naturall borne Subjects of the Realme are hereby declared and shall for ever be esteemed and taken to all Intents and Purposes to be and to have been the Kings Naturall borne Subjects of the Kingdom and … shall be adjudged reputed and taken to be and to have been in every respect and degree Naturall borne Subjects and free to all intents purposes and constructions as if they and every of them had been born in England.58 It is important to emphasize here that parliament made a relatively narrow and precise change to the common law, applicable only to those born between 1641 and 1660 (that is, the interregnum period of the Civil War) and only to those who had fled England on account of the Civil War. Moreover, by linking the statutory “natural born subject” category to the time in which the rightful king himself was out of the country, parliament might be said not so much to be redefining natural born subjectship in general but accommodating a uniquely disruptive episode in English history. At the same time, though, the 1677 statute was a departure from traditional practice in that Parliament did not merely naturalize a group of people; it specifically declared them “natural born.” That approach lacked practical significance, however, since under the law of the time there apparently was no difference in the rights of natural born and naturalized subjects. The next step came in 1698, with “An Act to Naturalize the Children of such Officers and Souldiers & others the natural borne Subjects of the Realm who have been borne abroad during the Warr the Parents of such Children having been in the Service of this Government.” 59 The situation here was that King William III had spent extended time in his native Netherlands directing the war with France, together with a substantial army and body of attendants from England. As during the Civil War, that created a large group of people born abroad who were obviously English in every practical sense, but under the common law were not subjects. Adopting the form of the 1677 statute, parliament began by noting (consistent with common law) that: Whereas during the late War with France divers of His Majestys good and lawfull Subjects … did by rason of their Attendance on His Majesty in Flanders and bearing Armes under His said Majesty against the French King and other His 57 29 Ch. II, c. 6 (1677), 5 STATUTES OF THE REALM 847 (1819) (1963 reprint). 58 Id. The statute further provided that to gain natural born status the children in question had to receive the sacrament from the Church of England and take the oath of allegiance to the king, provisions repeated in later statutes. 59 9 Will. III, ch. 20 (1698), 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 380 (1820) (1963 reprint).
Majestyies Enemies reside in Parts beyond the Seas out of his Majesties Dominions. And whereas during such Residence abroad divers Children have been borne unto such his Majesties Subjects which said Children notwithstanding they have been borne of English parents yet by reason of their being borne in Parts beyond the Seas out of His Majesties Dominions may be interpreted to be incapable of taking receiving or enjoying any Manors and lands or any other Privileges and Immunities belonging to the liege People and natural borne subjects of his Kingdom …60 Parliament then declared, again in the model of the 1677 statute: That … Persons who att any time since the Thirteenth Day of February One thousand six hundred eighty eight or at any time since the beginning of the said late Warr with France & before the Twenty fifth Day of March One thousand six hundred ninety and eight which are or shall be borne out of His Majesties Dominions and whose Fathers or Mothers were natural borne subjects of this Realme and were then actually in the Service of His Majesty or of His Majesty and the Late Queen of Blessed Memory are hereby declared and shall forever be esteemed and taken to all Intents & Purposes to be and to have been the Kings natural born Subjects of this Kingdome and that the said Children and every one of them are and shall be adjudged reputed and taken to be in every respect and degree natural borne subjects and free to all Intents Purposes & Constructions as if they & every one of them had been borne in England. As in 1677, the adjustment of the common law operated in a narrow temporal window (1688 to 1698) and was keyed to a particular oddity of the King being substantially absent from the realm. Moreover, the 1698 statute specifically applied only to those actually in the King’s service (that is, not to merchants or other persons abroad for other reasons, who presumably would still be governed by the common law as modified by the statute of 1350). But also of note, parliament continued the 1677 statute’s approach of declaring persons to be natural born, even where the common law would not have given them this status (and doing so retroactively). At around the same time, the Act of Settlement in 1700, without mentioning natural birth, may have been the original English precedent for the eligibility clause. It provided: That no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements 60 Id.
Or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him.61 Presumably the immediate impetus was that the Act contemplated the Crown passing (as in fact it did) to the German kings of Hanover upon the death of Queen Anne, 62 and parliament wished to bar an influx of German courtiers into English government. Parliament may also have been influenced by the tendency of William III (a Dutchman) to rely on Dutch rather than English advisors, to the considerable annoyance of English politicians. In any event, the Act of Settlement indicated a preference for local birth, with a further recognition that birth overseas to English parents was the practical equivalent. It does not bear directly on the meaning of “natural born,” however, because (perhaps oddly) the Act did not use the phrase – although it might have.63 Thus at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the statutory law and common law meaning of “natural born” were, as a practical matter, substantially aligned, with narrow exceptions for people born in particular circumstances and particular time periods. But the 1677 and 1698 Acts were potentially important departures as a theoretical matter, because in them parliament had undertaken its own definition of “natural born” (albeit with limited scope). Eighteenth century parliaments seized on these precedents to make very sweeping changes to the common law definition. In 1708, Parliament provided: [T]he Children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty Her Heires and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.64 The 1708 statute, although to some extent a logical successor to the seventeenth century legislation, revolutionized the rules of subjectship in several respects. First, it was openended temporally, applying indefinitely into the future. Second, it no longer rested on unique historical circumstances, nor could it be justified by a legal fiction of direct 61 12 & 13 Will. III, ch. 2 (1700), 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM 636, 637 (1820) (1963 reprint). As a followup, to prevent evasion of this requirement, parliament provided that no future naturalization bill could be passed unless it contained a similar statement of disqualification. 1 Geo. I, ch. 4 (1714), 13 STATUTES AT LARGE 141, 142 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1764). 62 See 7 STATUTES OF THE REALM, at 637. 63 Interestingly, the Act of Settlement apparently contemplated that some persons who were not natural born subjects would not be politically disqualified. Although the 1677 and 1698 Acts had made some persons born abroad of English parents natural born subjects, they conspicuously had not done so for all such persons. 64 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5 (1708), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 63 (1822) (1963 reprint). As the title of the Act indicates, the Act actually went much further, also declaring that all foreign born protestants who took the oath of allegiance to the English monarch “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be Her Majesties natural born subjects of the Kingdom to all Intents Constitutions and Purposes as if they and every of them had been or were born within this Kingdom.” That provision was repealed just three years later because of “divers Mischiefs and Inconveniences,” see 10 Anne ch. 9 (1711), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 557 (1822) (1963 reprint).
Service to the king when the king was abroad. The statute was thus a full-blown redefinition of the common law, not merely a one-time adjustment. The 1708 statute had a key ambiguity. The seventeenth century statutes had specifically said that to be covered a child needed only one natural born parent, father or mother. The 1708 statute, in contrast, could be read to require either one natural born parent or two, depending on how one read the phrase “children of all natural born subjects.” That led parliament in 1731 to pass an Act to “explain” the 1708 statute, which provided: [A]ll children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act … and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.65 Note here that the “explanation” is that one’s father must be a natural born subject, a departure from the seventeenth century statutes and really a change from (rather than a clarification of) the 1708 statute. For present purposes, though, the core point is that the 1731 statute continued the practice of declaring a class to be not merely subjects but natural born subjects. Parliament used similar phrasing in a 1773 statute that extended natural-born subject status to those whose paternal grandfathers were natural-born citizens. 66 That statute expressly linked the extension of subjectship to policy considerations arising from expanding foreign commerce, reciting that: Whereas divers natural-born subjects of Great Britain who profess and exercise the protestant religion, though various lawful causes, especially for the better carrying on of commerce, have been, and are, obliged to reside in several trading cities and other foreign places, where they have contracted marriages and brought up families: and Whereas it is equally just and expedient that the kingdom should not be deprived of such subjects, nor lose the benefit of the wealth that they have acquired; and therefore that not only the children of such natural born subjects, but their children also, should continue under the allegiance of his Majesty, and be intitled to come into this kingdom, and to bring hither and realize or otherwise employ their capital…67 65 An act to explain a clause in an act made in the seventh year of the reign of her late majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing foreign Protestants, which relates to the children of the natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, 4 Geo. II, ch. 21 (1731), 16 STATUTES AT LARGE 243 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1765). The benefits of the statute were expressly denied to those whose parents had been attainted of treason or in the service of a foreign prince in enmity to the crown. Id. 66 13 Geo. III, ch. 21, (1773), 30 STATUTES AT LARGE 28-29 (Danby Pickering, ed., 1785). 67 Id.
The act then provided, following the 1731 statute: that all persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the ligeanace of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose fathers were or shall be, by virtue of [the statute of 4 Geo. II ch. 21] shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this kingdom…68 The founding generation in America was aware of these statutes, if not directly, via Blackstone, who noted: To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw III, st.2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king ... might inherit as if born in England … But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural born subjects, are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exceptions; unless their said fathers were attained, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.69 Blackstone’s description seems to resolve a possible ambiguity in the statutes, which might be read only the say that foreign born children have the rights of natural born citizens, not that they are natural born citizens. Blackstone, however, uses the phrase “are now natural born citizens,” indicating a change in the definition, not merely an expansion of rights. This stands in contrast to his later discussion of naturalization after birth: [E]very foreign seaman who in time of war serves two years on board an English ship is ipso facto naturalized; and all foreign protestants, and Jews, upon their residing seven years in any of the American colonies, without being absent above two months at a time, are upon taking the oaths naturalized to all intents and purposes, as if they had been born in this kingdom; and therefore are admissible to all such privileges, and no other, as protestants or Jews born in this kingdom are entitled to.70 Again, Blackstone’s description is consistent with later historical works. For example, one leading account declares: Persons Born Abroad who are by Statute Natural-born British Subjects.—Some persons born out of the dominions of the King, though aliens by the common law, 68 Id. 69 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 361. This was written before the 1773 Act extended natural born status to grandchildren. 70 Id. at 363.
Have been made natural-born subjects by statute. These persons differ from those already mentioned, who, though born out of the King’s dominions, are naturalborn subjects by the common law in that the later, though born without the dominions, are yet born within the allegiance of the King. … The result of these statutes71 is, that a person, though born abroad, whose father or grandfather on the father’s side was born within the British dominions, is a natural-born British subject …72 Although neither Parliament nor Blackstone provided a full explanation for why children born abroad to English subject parents were appropriately called “natural born subjects,” the statutory extension seems consistent with the principles of the common law. Under common law, “natural born” meant born within the protection of the monarch (and thus, as a natural matter, owing allegiance to the person who provided protection). In ancient times, when few people travelled, this understandably meant just those people born in the monarch’s territory, since that was typically the extent of the monarch’s protection. But by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as foreign travel expanded, the protection of the monarch had to be understood more broadly, because English subjects travelling abroad also owed the monarch allegiance and claimed the monarch’s protection. Thus children of English subjects born abroad were born under the allegiance and protection of the monarch (what the common law required of a “natural born citizen”) even though not born in the monarch’s lands. The statutory expansion of natural born subjects thus likely reflected a new recognition that the monarch’s protection and allegiance extended abroad in respect of English subjects and their children. As a result, the traditional common law rule does not capture the English legal background in which the framers operated. By the late eighteenth century, parliament had claimed power to define natural born subjectship substantially beyond what the common law recognized, and to extend it – expressly for policy reasons – to broad classes of people born outside English territory. But even if we assume that the American framers had English statutory law in mind, it remains somewhat ambiguous what they would have concluded from it. Would they think that “natural born” meant what it meant in English law in 1787-88 (birth within sovereign territory or birth abroad to a citizen father or grandfather)? Or would they have taken it more broadly to mean that “natural born” could, at least to a significant 71 The prior omitted paragraph quotes the 1708, 1731, and 1773 statutes excerpted previously. 72 HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 66-67. Another contemporary account, which may not have been available to the framers, is Richard Wooddeson’s 1777 series of lectures in English law (published in 1792). Consistent with Blackstone, Wooddeson observed that “An alien by the laws of England, is one born out of the ligenance of the king … [I]f natural born subjects have children born abroad, such children also, by the st. 7 A[nne] c. 5 § 3, are to be adjudged natural born subjects, and not aliens.” RICHARD WOODDESON, A SYSTEMATIC VIEW OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 370 (1792) (lecture delivered in 1777). He added: “The issue of an alien, born within the realm, are accounted natural subjects.” Id. at 386.
Extent, be defined by statute? Part IV takes up that question, but before doing so it is necessary to consider another possible source of the framers’ meaning. C. Vattel and the Civil Law Tradition English law is not the only possible source of the Framers’ understanding of “natural born” citizenship. Indeed, it is a slightly problematic one. English law spoke of natural born “subjects” rather than natural born “citizens,” and it is possible that the revolutionary-minded Americans perceived a difference between citizens and subjects for this purpose.73 Moreover, the civil law tradition, and especially the influential work of the Swiss theorist Emer de Vattel, supplies another possible definition of the phrase expressly linked to “citizens” rather than “subjects.” Vattel had this to say: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. .. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.74 Vattel added that “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” As to those born abroad, Vattel declared: It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change 73 See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 10 (making this point and discussing distinctions between citizens and subject made, inter alia, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)). 74 VATTEL, LAW OF NATIONS, supra note 9, bk. I, ch. XIX, § 212 (1758) (1797 transl.). Note that this is a later translation than was available to the Framers. In the original French (which was available to the framers), the key sentence reads: “Les naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.” Translations available at the time of the framing of the Constitution rendered the terms “naturels or indigenes” as “natives or indigenes”, thus: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” See MESKILL, QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT, supra note 4, at 22 n.100 (quoting VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, at p. 92 (1760 translation), and VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, at p. 166 (1787 translation)).
In this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from the child what nature has given him; …75 Thus Vattel’s view was apparently both broader and narrower than English common law – narrower in disqualifying people born within sovereign territory of noncitizen fathers from “natural born” status and broader in embracing natural citizenship for those born abroad to citizen fathers. (English statutory law paralleled Vattel on the latter point, but not the former).76 Although Vattel was no doubt a principal channel for conveying this view of citizenship to America, he was not an outlier; rather, he reflected the basic idea of citizenship by blood, or “jus sanguinis,” in civil law traditions, which were likely accessible to at least some of the framers from other sources. Blackstone acknowledged the difference: after declaring that all children of aliens born in England were English subjects, he observed “in which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”77 As a result, Vattel and the civil law tradition offer an alternative definition of “natural born” substantially at odds with the modern view. It would make a sizeable category of people not “natural born” even though born in the United States, and it would suggest that children born abroad of a citizen mother but not a citizen father are not natural born.78 It remains to ask which of these meanings – common law, statutory law, or civil law – is most plausibly assigned to the eligibility clause. The next section takes up that question. III. The American Understanding of Citizenship. This section asks which of the foregoing sources of meaning is best understood as the original public meaning of the eligibility clause. It is worth emphasizing here that the 75 VATTEL, LAW OF NATIONS, supra note 9, bk. I, ch. XIX, § 215. 76 It is possible to read Vattel to require both birth in sovereign territory and birth of a citizen father to establish “natural born” status. Read in isolation, that is what section 212 appears to say. However, section 215 adds that those born abroad to a citizen father has the same status “by the law of nature,” which appears to extend the category of those who have citizenship naturally. 77 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 362. See also HENRIQUES, LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 29: [T]he law of England has always adopted the feudal or territorial principles of determining nationality by the place of birth alone, and has always, in theory, at any rate, rejected the contrary principle founded on the Roman law and incorporated in the Code Napoleon and the jurisprudence of many modern nations, whereby children, wherever they are born, are always deemed to possess the nationality of their parents, a legitimate child taking the nationality of the father and an illegitimate child taking that of the mother. 78 To be clear, this reading would not affect the citizenship of persons in these categories. Congress has power to naturalize (that is, to make an alien a citizen) and English practice shows that “naturalization” could be done either individually or categorically. Moreover, as to persons born in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment appears categorically to declare them citizens at birth. The question, germane only to the eligibility clause, is whether persons in these categories are “natural born” citizens (as opposed to citizens by positive law), and the strong implication of a reading based on Vattel is that they are not.
Question is not the subjective intent of any particular framer, or even the collective subjective intent of all the framers (even assuming that could be identified). It is, rather, the public meaning of “natural born Citizen” – what a reasonable informed observer would understand by the phrase in the context in which it was used. In this sense, the legal meanings sketched in the preceding subsections are in the nature of dictionary definitions – they do not necessarily represent the views of everyone, or of any particular person, because people may use words colloquially or incorrectly. Rather they represent (or may represent) a meaning ascribed by the culture – in this case the legal culture – in general. With this in mind, consider the possible candidates. Although each has surface plausibility, this section argues that the best source of meaning in this situation is English law generally, combining common law and statutory law. As explained below, the alternatives are speculative or implausible. A. The Preference for the English over the Civil Law Definition. Relying on Vattel, and more generally the civil law tradition, to define “natural born” has some attractions. To begin, Vattel used the word “citizen” (citoyen) rather than “subject.” English law consistently used “subject.” As the Constitution also uses “citizen,” and as the revolutionary generation in America surely saw at least in some contexts a difference between citizens and subjects,79 Vattel might be thought to have a closer connection to the eligibility clause’s text and context. Further, Vattel’s work was well known in founding-era America, both in the original French and in several English translations. Vattel was a principal source of the founding-generation’s understanding of the law of nations, which the United States, as a weak state threatened by powerful European empires, was anxious to uphold.80 Thus there are reasons to think the framers might have looked to Vattel in defining natural born citizens. The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear – as clear as we can be about these matters – that no widespread public connection was drawn.81 79 See, e.g., DAVID RAMSAY, A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES 4 (1789) (discussing the difference between citizens and subjects); Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 10. 80 See MICHAEL D. RAMSEY, THE CONSTITUTION’S TEXT IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS 179-180, 344-45 (2007) (discussing the influence of international law writers, especially Vattel, in founding-era America). 81 The closest to a founding-era adoption of Vattel’s approach is in David Ramsay’s brief 1789 “dissertation” on citizenship. Ramsay does not discuss “natural born” citizenship in those words, though at one point he says “The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have born of citizens since July 4, 1776.” RAMSAY, DISSERTATION, supra note 79, at 6. That appears to express a “jus sanguinis” approach to citizenship consistent with Vattel. Elsewhere, though, he says that citizenship can be acquired by “birth or inheritance.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). This observation seems in tension with his claim that citizenship “as a natural right” could only come from one’s parents, because its disjunctive suggests that one could.
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state82 and (in others) “natural born citizens.”83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution. Similarly, Zephaniah Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, published in 1795, repeatedly uses the phrase “natural born subject” in connection with post-independence inhabitants of Connecticut. He begins his discussion by saying that “the people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighboring acquire citizenship (though perhaps not citizenship “as a natural right”) by birth alone. In any event, to the extent Ramsay took a Vattellian view he appears to be an outlier, and he did not refer to Vattel by name. 82 An Act For Naturalizing William Martin And Others, Mar. 2, 1787 (named naturalized persons “entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born subjects”), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104349/1786acts0077.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Edward Wyer, And Others, Therein Named, May 1, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104360/1786acts0088.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Bartholomy De Gregoire, Maria Theresa De Gregoire, His Wife, And Their Children, Oct. 29, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104376/1787acts0016.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing William Menzies, And Others, Therein Named, June 19, 1788, available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104440/1788acts0015.txt?sequence=1 (same); An Act For Naturalizing Nathaniel Skinner And Others Therein Named, June 22, 1789 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104514/1789acts0012.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing James Huyman, And Others Therein Named, Feb,. 14, 1789 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104488/1788acts0063.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing John Jarvis & Others Therein Named, Mar. 6, 1790 (same), http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104558/1789acts0056.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Alexander Moore, And Others, Herein Named, Nov. 16, 1787 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104384/1787acts0024.txt?sequence=1; see also An Act For Naturalizing Michael Cunningham And John Prescott, June 27, 1782 (referring to privileges of “natural subjects”), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/103985/1782acts0004.txt?sequence=1. 83 An Act for Naturalizing John White and Others, Mar. 11, 1791, available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104609/1790acts0047.txt?sequence=1 (named naturalized persons entitled “to all the rights and priviledges of natural born citizens”); An Act For Naturalizing Michael Walsh, Feb. 7, 1786 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104238/1785acts0043.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Nicholas Rousselet And George Smith, Feb. 25, 1785 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104163/1784acts0043.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Jonathan Curson And William Oliver (July 7, 1786) (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104291/1786acts0019.txt?sequence=1; An Act For Naturalizing Elisha Bourn And Others, Therein Named, Nov. 21, 1788 (same), available at http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/104450/1788acts0025.txt?sequence=1.
State of the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.” Later he adds that the children of aliens, “born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”84 As a result, there is little reason, on this ground, to think Vattel is a better source of meaning than English law: Americans did not broadly reject the word “subject” and instead used it interchangeably with “citizen.” Third, post-ratification evidence indicates that the framers were using an Englishlaw influenced definition of citizenship, not a Vattel-influenced definition. As described above, the earliest post-ratification discussion of the clause is Madison’s comment in the Smith controversy (in which there was some question whether Representative Smith was a citizen and thus eligible to Congress). Madison wrote: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States....85 As discussed above, this quote is ambiguous on the scope of citizenship rights (and does not use the phrase “natural born” at all). But it strongly indicates that Madison employed an English rather than a Vattelian definition. In referring to birth citizenship deriving “sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage” he is describing the divide between English law “jus soli” and civil law “jus sanguinis.” He then says “place is the most certain criterion” and “what applies in the United States.” “Place” is the rule of English law; it is manifestly not Vattel’s rule, because Vattel excluded from birth citizenship the fairly large class of persons whose fathers were not citizens. Thus Madison apparently thought that the English rules were the U.S. baseline. Swift’s treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of “subject” to birth in sovereign territory, describing “natural born subjects” as those “born within the state” and later specifically saying that the children of aliens “born in this state” are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87 Like Madison’s assessment, Swift’s description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.88 84 ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, A SYSTEM OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 163, 167 (1795). See also id. at 163 (referring to the “subjects of a state”); id. at 165 (noting that a naturalized foreigner owes the same allegiance as a “natural born subject”); id. at 166 (noting that foreigners enjoy the same “law and justice” as “subjects of this state.”; id. at 167 (noting that children of ambassadors born abroad are considered “natural born subjects”). Notably Swift also sometimes used “citizen” to mean the same as “subject”. See, e.g. id. at 165 (noting that “all citizens of the individual states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, became citizens of the United States”). 85 See supra n. 28 & accompanying text. 86 SWIFT, LAW OF CONNECTICUT, supra note 84, at 165, 167. 87 Id. at 165-66. 88 Swift went so far as to say that “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.” Id. at 165. That, of course, was not true; Vattel and continental writers said the contrary. See supra Part II.C.
St. George Tucker’s 1803 treatise also follows this pattern, observing: Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.89 Again, the equating of “natural born” and “born within the state” contradicts Vattel and adopts the English approach.90 In sum, most American commentators and jurists who discussed citizenship in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries followed the English approach in assuming that as a general rule birth in the United States was sufficient to convey citizenship ().91 That assumption shows that they did not think Vattel’s view had been adopted in the United States, because Vattel directly declared that a person born in a country was not a citizen of that country unless his father was also a citizen of that country. Particularly in the context of a country with high immigration, as the United States was at the time, it would be impossible to follow Vattel’s view without substantial difficulties: large numbers of people moved to the United States and then had children; the children were assumed to be U.S. citizens but (absent subsequent naturalization) would not be under Vattel’s rule. Thus, following Vattel would have created a large (and self-sustaining) class of U.S. residents who were not U.S. citizens despite birth in the United States and with no material connections to any other country. There is no evidence that any substantial number of people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thought U.S. law worked this way. 89 ST. GEORGE TUCKER. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (1803) (Rothman Reprints, 1969). 90 Later constitutional treatises adopt a similar view. See WILLIAM RAWLE, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 86 (1829) (“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution …Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”); 1 JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 255 (1830) (describing the effect of the eligibility clause to be that “the President is required to be a native citizen”); 2 id. at 39 (defining “native” to mean “all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”). Joseph Story wrote to similar effect. See Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 122 (1830) (describing citizenship principally in terms of place of birth); id. at 155 (Story, J., concurring and dissenting) (same). 91 Some debate persisted as to the question of persons born to parents who were only visiting the United States temporarily. See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236 (1844) (reflecting debate over citizenship of persons born of parents only temporarily in the country)
While it is true that this evidence is not comprehensive, it nonetheless indicates that in the post-ratification period Americans tended to adopt the English approach to subjectship/citizenship, not Vattel’s approach. In any event, it outweighs evidence to the contrary, which apart from speculation is essentially non-existent. B. Common Law or Statutory Law? Once we conclude that founding-era Americans looked to English legal conceptions and definitions in thinking about citizenship, we face a more difficult question: does the Constitution adopt the common law meaning, or the common law meaning as modified by statute? As described above, this is a crucial question: English common law, with very minor exceptions, embraced an absolute territorial conception of subjectship at birth, such that (in general) children born abroad of subject parents were not natural subjects;92 in contrast, by statute the class of natural subjects had been extended at various times to various persons, and after 1773 the rule was that children born aboard with English subject fathers or grandfathers were “natural born” English subjects.93 Like the argument for looking to Vattel, the argument for looking only to the common law definition has some textual plausibility. In particular, the text’s use of the word “natural” implies a non-statutory definition, owing to the distinction between natural law and positive (statutory) law. Because English common law, at least with regard to subjectship, regarded itself as founded on natural law, the Constitution’s use of “natural” might be thought of as an express incorporation of common law. Further, unlike in the case of Vattel’s definition, post-ratification sources suggest that Americans were influenced by the natural law of subjectship/citizenship. All of the sources cited above – Madison, Swift, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, and Story – emphasize the common law distinction between birth in sovereign territory and birth outside sovereign territory.94 None of them expressly acknowledges that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens (other than diplomats) could be natural born U.S. citizens, and several of them speak in categorical terms that seem to exclude the possibility. Here, however, it is important to reemphasize that the question is the meaning of “natural born” in the eligibility clause. We look to English law because that that phrase had an established meaning in English law which is the best indication of its public meaning in the United States in 1787-88. Put this way, it seems odd to look at only a portion of English law (common law) rather than the whole body of English law. The simple fact is that the pure common law definition of “natural born” was not the law in England in the 1780s, and had not been for over a century. A quick glance at Blackstone would suffice to show founding-era Americans that parliament had altered the definition on numerous occasions. Importantly, it was not the case that parliament had merely said certain persons born outside English territory were subjects despite the 92 See supra Part II.A. 93 See supra Part II.B. 94 See supra nn. 78-83 & accompanying text.
Common law; parliament had said that such persons would be called “natural born” despite the common law. That is, the statutes expressly changed the definition (and again, this was apparent in Blackstone as well as in the statutes themselves).95 In sum, the late-eighteenth-century definition of “natural born” was a combination of common law and statutory law – and anyone even mildly familiar with English law would have understood it this way. If we are using the meaning of terms in English law as a sort of dictionary definition of legal terms of art in the Constitution, it makes little sense to use anything but the then-existing legal meanings, rather than an artificial subset. Moreover, as discussed, the Constitution’s framers were undoubtedly familiar with the English practice of defining “natural born” subjects by statute, especially through Blackstone’s prominent description of it.96 If the framers wanted to limit presidential eligibility only to persons born within the nation’s territory, it is highly unlikely that they would have used a phrase – “natural born” – that they knew English law defined to include some people born outside the nation’s territory. If there were evidence that the framers’ used a different definition linked only to territory, or that they misunderstood English law, it would be another matter – but as recounted above there is no such evidence. And further, limiting the eligibility clause to the common law meaning would make the 1790 citizenship statute unconstitutional, as explained above. The post-ratification commentary is not to the contrary, because none of it speaks directly to the question. Even with the statutory modifications, eighteenth century English law generally followed the traditional common law definition of “natural born” as meaning territorial birth. Thus it is unsurprising that commentators, speaking generally, used what appears to be the common law definition. None of them confronted the question of whether “natural birth” could encompass statutorily defined birth abroad, and several could be read to suggest that it might.97 Further, the Constitution’s framers were familiar with the idea of statutorily defined birth-right citizenship from their own experiences. As early as 1779, Virginia passed a citizenship statute, “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.”98 By that act, all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act; and all who 95 See supra n. 55. 96 See supra, part I.B.2. In particular, John Jay, who is thought to have prompted the use of the phrase in the eligibility clause, was an Anglophile lawyer, diplomat and U.S. Foreign Secretary who had considerable dealings with England; he would seem likely to have had a full understanding of English law and practice. 97 Kent, for example, discussed the English statutes extending “natural born” status to children born aboard but did not say how those rules translated to U.S. law. 2 KENT, COMMENTARIES, supra note 90, at 51. He then discussed at length U.S. statutes granting birth citizenship without using the phrase “natural born.” Id. at 51-53. Rawle declared that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens under the eligibility clause, but did not say anything about those born outside the United States. RAWLE, VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION, supra note 90, at 86. 98 Laws of Virginia, May 1779, Chap. LV, 10 WILLIAM HENING, THE STATUTES AT LARGE OF VIRGINIA 129 (1822).
Shall hereafter migrate into the same, other than alien enemies, and shall before any court of record, give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation that they intend to reside therein; and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father if living, or otherwise whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth …shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth…99 This provision was modified somewhat in a new act in 1783 that declared among other things that “all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth … and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth…”100 The Virginia statutes did not use the phrase “natural born,” but they recognized citizenship at birth both in the sense of English common law (birth in the territory, without restriction as to the parents’ citizenship) and citizenship at birth by statutory extension to those born abroad to citizen parents. Although there is no direct evidence that Virginians regarded the latter category as “natural born,” the Virginia statutes paralleled the English citizenship statutes, and under the English statutes the foreign-born subjects-at-birth were called “natural born.” It would have been odd for Virginians to develop a different definition. In sum, the best view is that “natural born” in the eligibility clause meant what it meant in contemporaneous English law, taken as a whole. That raises this project’s most difficult question: what did it mean? Did it mean precisely the contours of “natural born” as defined by common law and statute in 1787-88? Or did it mean more broadly the common law definition as modified from time to time by statute?101 In considering this question, it becomes essential to consider the role of Congress’ naturalization power. IV. The Naturalization Clause and Congress’ “Natural Born” Power A. Congress’ Power to Define “Natural Born” To restate, this article has concluded so far that (i) the phrase “natural born” in the eligibility clause can be defined by looking to that phrase’s meaning in contemporaneous English law, and (ii) English law, in this context, should be understood as English law generally, including both common law and statutory law. 99 Id. 100 An act for the admission of emigrants and declaring their right to citizenship, Laws of Virginia, October 1783, 11 WILLIAM HENING, THE STATUTES AT LARGE OF VIRGINIA 322, 323 (1822). 101 As noted, the Clement/Katyal essay wholly elides this question by (incorrectly) describing eighteenthcentury English statutory law as providing natural-born subject status to all “children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown.” Clement & Katyal, supra note 4, at 1.
One might suppose, then, that this assessment would yield a decisive result. English law in 1787-88 was clear. “Natural born” included persons who were born subjects under common law – meaning essentially all persons born within sovereign territory (except children of foreign sovereigns, diplomats and invading soldiers) plus a small category of persons born abroad (children of English monarchs and diplomats). “Natural born” also included a category of persons who were declared to be born subjects by statute, namely those born abroad with English fathers or grandfathers. It did not extend any further. Translated to U.S. terms in the eligibility clause, this would seem to mean that only persons meeting this description would be eligible to the presidency – most notably, in terms of modern law, excluding those born abroad with only citizen mothers. This view, however, misunderstands the nature of parliament’s power over naturalization, and correspondingly misunderstands Congress’ power under the naturalization clause. The lesson of developments in eighteenth-century English statutory law in this area was that “natural born” was not a fixed concept, but rather was amenable to parliamentary modification, at least at the margins. The history of parliament’s role in the definition showed that parliament made frequent adjustments, in both directions. Parliament began with statutory adjustments for birth abroad that were very precise in time and category, but which allowed either a father or a mother who was a subject to be sufficient. The 1708 statute appeared to open the definition of “natural born” to anyone born aboard of an English parent, and indeed to any foreign protestant, but the latter provision was repealed after only three years, and the 1731 statute cut it back further to only those foreign-born with an English father; the 1773 statute then extended “natural born” to those with an English grandfather.102 In short, there was no longstanding statutory definition. The definition was subject to continual parliamentary adjustment. Or, put another way, the definition was what parliament said from time to time. Moreover, it is clear that parliament was not merely codifying a pre-existing common law, or even attempting to implement its own conclusions about natural law. Rather, the eighteenth-century extensions (and cut backs) were instrumental, explained in terms of the nation’s desire to promote overseas trade and travel, to expand its wealth, and to lure productive citizens to its territory. Well before 1787-88, therefore, the English understanding of “natural born” had lost its traditional connection with natural law and natural allegiance; it was a status parliament could convey based on the circumstances of birth. It had, in other words, become something of a redundancy: “natural” no longer carried independent meaning within the phrase. A natural born subject was simply someone born a subject, by the operation of common law or statutory law. Or, put another way, the 1787-88 English law meaning of “natural born” was the common law definition as modified from time to time by statute. As a result, it is extremely important that under the U.S. Constitution Congress has “Power …To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”103 The most obvious 102 See supra part II.B. 103 U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8.
Marker for the scope of this power is parliament’s power of naturalization. In modern American discourse, “naturalization” is often understood as the power to extend U.S. citizenship to foreign citizens on an individualized basis. That, however, was not a full description of the power as understood in the eighteenth century (although it included that power). In addition to individualized grants of citizenship, “naturalization” in English law referred to statutes that made categories of persons English citizens.104 That is, “naturalization” meant a process that made someone a citizen who was not a citizen under common law. This is indeed the origin of the word: a person who was a citizen under common law was a “natural” citizen; a person made a citizen by statute was made as if they were a natural citizen – hence, naturalized. Crucially, all of the eighteenth-century statutes that declared a class of persons to be “natural born” subjects were called acts of naturalization.105 As a result, there is no doubt that parliament’s power of naturalization included the power to declare categories of natural born subjects beyond the traditional common law. Somewhat confusingly, in terms of modern usage, these persons were both “natural born” and “naturalized.” Applied to the U.S. Constitution, the implication of the English law terminology is clear. Congress’ power of “naturalization,” like parliament’s power, includes both the power to establish rules for naturalizing foreign citizens on an individualized basis and the power to declare categories of persons citizens by the circumstances of their birth. And the latter power includes the power to define certain categories as “natural born” (a phrase that in eighteenth-century English law had little practical effect, but which took on new significance in U.S. law as a result of the eligibility clause). This interpretation is consistent with what would otherwise be two oddities about the eligibility clause. First, it explains the 1790 Naturalization Act, which declared that children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents were “natural born” citizens.106 The Act’s definition did not exactly track any of the English or continental definitions of “natural born”: under English common law such persons were not considered “natural born;” 107 under English statutory law as explained by Blackstone108 and under Vattel’s law-ofnations theory109 they were “natural born” if but only if their fathers were natural born citizens.110 Thus Congress did not seem to be adopting any existing definition, but rather creating its own definition. In this sense, it was acting entirely consistently with Blackstone’s description of “natural born” as open to statutory definition (even though Congress did not adopt the exact definition of English statutory law).111 The 1790 Act is 104 See HENRIQUES, THE LAW OF ALIENS, supra note 47, at 34-41 (discussing both powers). 105 See supra part II.B. 106 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. 107 See supra part II.A. 108 See supra part II.B. 109 See supra part II.C. 110 As noted, the 1790 Act is ambiguous as to whether it meant both parents or only one parent had to be a U.S. citizen, but in either event it was not precisely parallel with English law or law-of-nations theory. 111 Congress’ definition resembled Virginia’s citizenship statute, which gave birth citizenship to anyone born abroad with at least one citizen parent, see supra nn. 96-98, although Virginia did not use the phrase “natural born.”
Hard to explain on any other theory (aside from the claim that Congress acted unconstitutionally).112 Further, the “natural born” portion of the 1790 Act is not easily understood as the exercise of any constitutionally delegated power apart from the naturalization power. It is extremely likely that Congress saw the naturalization power as its source, as the Act was titled an act “to provide a uniform rule of naturalization” (exactly tracking the constitutional language), and the provisions on natural birth appear after a series of provisions describing how foreign citizens may become U.S. citizens (the more common understanding of “naturalization”).113 Moreover, Congress declared foreign-born children of U.S. citizens not merely to be U.S. citizens, but to be natural born U.S. citizens.114 Congress thus must have believed the naturalization power extended to declarations of “natural born” status. Without a full understanding of English statutory practice, that conclusion might seem odd, but in light of parliament’s naturalization acts it makes perfect sense. The 1790 Congress evidently understood that parliament’s naturalization power (and thus its own naturalization power) included the power to declare categories of persons to be natural born citizens. Second, a textual puzzle of the eligibility clause is why the drafters used the phase “natural born.” Presumably they knew that it had a somewhat ambiguous definition – this would be apparent from a quick read of Blackstone and Vattel, who defined it differently. If they meant “persons born in the United States” it would have been much easier to simply say so. A plausible explanation is that they deliberately picked a phrase that they knew (from English practice) had some flexibility for statutory definition, but would still protect against the particular threats they were trying to avoid.115 If they thought it important for the President to have some life-long connection to the United States but also thought this could be established in some circumstances for those born abroad, using a phrase somewhat subject to legislative definition would serve them well. In sum, then, the key to the eligibility clause is not just its own language, but Congress’ Article I, Section 8 power over naturalization. In English law the naturalization power included the power to define who was “natural born.” Absent indications to the contrary, Congress’ naturalization power should have the same scope – a point born out by the 1790 Naturalization Act. Later interpreters who have looked for a 112 To be sure, the First Congress did pass some unconstitutional provisions. But in this case, where the constitutional language is ambiguous on its face, the First Congress’ actions seem relevant evidence of the proper interpretation. 113 An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. 114 Id. 115 An alternative explanation might be that (assuming one credits the theory that the language originated with Jay) is that Jay did not want to limit eligibility to persons born in the United States. Several of his children were born abroad. But, since they were born while was serving as a diplomatic agent of the United States, they would have been considered natural born citizens even under the traditional common law definition of “natural born.
Meaning of “natural born” in the eligibility clause alone have been looking in the wrong place. B. Limits on Congress’ Power to Define “Natural Born” While Congress thus appears to have power to define natural birth, we should also consider possible limits on that power. The Constitution’s framers might have conveyed an unlimited power on Congress, but that seems unlikely. In particular, it is not clear that Congress’ possession of an unlimited power would resolve the problems of foreign intrigue. If a person born and raised a foreigner could be made eligible simply by having enough supporters in Congress to redefine his status, that would seem to heighten rather than ameliorate the problem of foreign intrigue.116 English practice suggests at least two important limits on Congress’ power, however. First, it is doubtful that Congress could convey natural born status on persons with no connections to the United States at birth. With one salient exception, Parliament never claimed this power. The “natural born” statutes of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries addressed persons who had material connections to England, namely that their parents or grandparents were English subjects.117 Other statutes declared categories of persons who had no connection to England at birth to be English citizens, but these did not use the term “natural born.”118 The one exception to this pattern tends to prove the rule. In the 1708 Naturalization Act, Parliament declared all European Protestants, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, to be natural born English subjects.119 This gesture proved immediately unsatisfactory, was quickly repealed and not repeated.120 As noted, subsequent statutes making subjects of persons with no birth connections to England did not declare those persons to be “natural born.”121 Second, it is doubtful that Congress could convey natural born status on a particular individual without similarly making all similarly situated persons equally eligible. Again, Parliament did not exercise its naturalization power in this way. Some English naturalization acts did declare certain persons by name to be natural born subjects, but they went on to convey equivalent status on all persons similarly situated.122 116 That is especially true because English practice does not indicate a limit on retroactivity. As discussed, English statutes routinely conveyed natural born status on categories of person already born. See supra part II.B. 117 See supra Part II.B. 118 See 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363 (discussing statutes naturalizing certain foreign seamen and certain non-English residents in the American colonies). 119 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5 (1708), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 63 (1822) (1963 reprint); see supra note 51 and accompanying text (discussing this statute). 120 See 10 Anne ch. 9 (1711), 9 STATUTES OF THE REALM 557 (1822) (1963 reprint); 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363. 121 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 363. 122 See supra Part II.B. This limit also may be suggested by the naturalization clause, which only gives Congress power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. See U.S. CONST. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4.
In contrast, when parliament individually naturalized a foreign citizen, it did not declare them natural born. Recognizing these limits on Congress’ naturalization power would prevent the intrigues that concerned the framers, while leaving Congress substantial definitional flexibility. To take the example of Baron von Steuben, whom Professor Thach thought John Jay had in mind in first suggesting the eligibility clause:123 Steuben was born in Germany of non-U.S. parents and with no connection to the United States. He later came to the United States and gained fame as an aide to Washington in the Revolutionary War.124 Under no plausible definition of “natural born” was he a “natural born citizen.” Once the Constitution took effect, Congress could have made him a naturalized citizen at any time, but could not have made him a “natural born” citizen.125 Similarly, to the extent there was concern over rumored invitations to foreign nobles to assume the presidency, again the requirement of “natural born,” even if subject to legislative definition, would preclude such intrigues in a way that a mere citizenship requirement would not. As a result, though Congress has broad power to define who is natural born under its naturalization power, English practice and the purposes of the eligibility clause suggest that Congress can only exercise that power with respect to categories of persons with some material connection to the United States at birth.126 primary meaning of that phrase was not doubt to contrast with the non-uniform practices of the states, it may also suggest that a naturalization rule must be equally applicable to similarly situated persons. 123 See supra n. 25. 124 See PAUL DOUGLAS LOCKHART, THE DRILLMASTER OF VALLEY FORGE: THE BARON DE STEUBEN AND THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAN ARMY (2008). 125 In fact, however, von Steuben was a citizen of the United States at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, having been made a citizen of both Pennsylvania and New York. See LOCKHART, supra note 124. Thus he was eligible to the presidency under the final version of the Constitution; it is not clear if Jay knew von Steuben was a citizen, and in any event the alternative eligibility rule was not in Jay’s proposal. 126 A related puzzle is whether Congress could declare certain categories of persons not to be natural born citizens. As to persons not natural born under common law, the likely answer is yes. English statutory practice both expanded and contracted the definition of “natural born” over the course of the eighteenth century. See supra Part I. As to persons who had natural born status under common law, the question is more difficult, but there is no direct English precedent for doing so, and in any event the question appears to have been mooted by the Fourteenth Amendment’s declaration that all persons born in the United States are citizens. A further difficulty in modern law is that the current naturalization law declares most persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent to be U.S. citizens, but it does not declare that they are “natural born” citizens. As discussed, the 1790 Naturalization Act used the phrase “natural born” in this context, but that language was dropped in the 1795 Act; subsequent enactments have followed the 1795 Act in this regard. Thus, while Congress has power to declare persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent to be “natural born” citizens, perhaps it has not done so. A full examination of this question is beyond the scope of this article; it is worth noting, however, that Congress seems plainly to understand its Act as making persons who are citizens at birth eligible to the presidency. See, e.g., S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008) (unanimously finding John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone and thus arguably outside U.S. territory, to be a natural born citizen by prior statute). The resolution generally refers to the children of Americans serving in the military (not just those in McCain’s situation) and specifically notes the 1790 citizenship act. As a result, it seems clear that the resolution based its conclusions on McCain’s birth abroad to U.S. parents.
Conclusion
Conventional wisdom holds that a “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s eligibility clause means anyone who is made a U.S. citizen at birth under then-existing statutory language. However, that is not the most obvious reading of the clause. The Constitution’s reference to “natural” citizenship appears on its face to be a reference to citizenship conveyed by natural law (exactly the opposite of citizenship conveyed by statute). That has in turn led to considerable debate about the eighteenth-century “natural” law of citizenship, which is in turn uncertain depending on whether one looks at English common law, English statutory law, or law-of-nations principles espoused by writers such as Vattel. However, little direct evidence exists as to which view of natural law the framers might have held. Under this line of inquiry, the better conclusion may be that the clause is fatally ambiguous as to certain groups of citizens – a position suggested or embraced by several leading scholars.127 As set forth above, careful review of the phrase’s history suggests that the conventional view is the best one, although the argument is more difficult and complex than the conventional view acknowledges. The decisive fact about the phrase “natural born” is that it had commonly appeared in English statutes throughout the lateseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In traditional English common law, “natural born” (applied to “subjects”) meant (with minor exceptions) born within English territory. However, beginning in 1677, and continuing up to the framers’ time, parliament had expanded that definition by statute to include some persons born abroad with English parents. Crucially, parliament had not merely extended the rights of natural born subjects to these new categories, but had declared that persons in the new categories were natural born subjects. As Blackstone put it, children so designated by statute “are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.”128 This English practice was known to the framers (at minimum, through Blackstone’s description). And absent any other conclusive definition of the phrase, it seems conclusive in itself. The framers knew that in English law “natural born” had a core meaning of birth within sovereign territory, but was subject to statutory expansion to include those born overseas with what parliament considered a sufficient connection to the nation. The best reading of the clause is that this is the constitutional meaning as well.129 127 See Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, supra note 6, at 12; Jacobson, natural born Citizens, supra note 6. 128 1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, supra note 11, at 361. 129 This reading is consistent with the clause’s apparent purpose, which was to bar from the presidency people who lacked longstanding attachment to the United States. Like people born in the United States, people born of U.S. parents abroad have an attachment to the United States from birth. The framers’ concern was with people who only became U.S. citizens later in life, who thus (they feared, perhaps unreasonably) might have more attachment to foreign interests, and in particular might scheme to establish foreign rule. See supra nn. 22-34 & accompanying text.
This approach is strongly reinforced by the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The English statutes declaring certain categories of people to be natural born, even if not born in England, were called naturalization acts. Thus eighteenth-century readers would understand the naturalization power to include the power (within certain limits) to define the scope of “natural” birth. As a result, somewhat counter-intuitively, “natural” born does at least to some extent depend on statutory law. Notably, this reading (and only this reading) supports the modern view that all persons defined as citizens at birth by statute are “natural born.” In particular, the modern citizenship statute defines most persons born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother and a non-citizen father to be U.S. citizens at birth. That status is not consistent with the meaning of “natural born” in English common law or in law-of-nations theory; nor was it the case under late-eighteenth-century English statutory law (which gave those born abroad “natural born” status only if their fathers were natural born). But so long as we see that “natural born” was subject to statutory expansion under the naturalization power, the fact that modern birthright citizenship does not accord in all particulars with eighteenth-century birthright citizenship is not problematic. In sum, as conventional wisdom holds, the best reading of the original meaning of the eligibility clause is that any person defined as a citizen at birth by the Constitution or a statute is eligible to the presidency. The proof, however, is much more difficult than conventional wisdom supposes.
The Modern History of the Republican Presidential Primary, 1976-2012
Geoffrey Skelley, Associate Editor,
Sabato's Crystal Ball
January 21st, 2016
This is the first of a two-part series describing the state-by-state history of modern presidential primary voting in each party. We’ll look at the Republicans this week and the Democrats next week in advance of the start of the 2016 nomination season on Feb. 1 in Iowa.
— The Editors
The presidential nomination process has a history of being fuzzy. For much of the nation’s political existence, starting in the 1830s, national party conventions selected nominees for the highest office in the land. At these events, the oft-used term “smoke-filled rooms” described the sometimes behind-the-scenes activity that led to the final selection of a nominee. Sometimes this person was an obvious, well-known national figure; other times, an unexpected, relative unknown captured the nomination.
As time passed, more and more states began to use presidential primaries to either determine the delegate commitments of their state’s representatives at these conventions or to at least indicate the electorate’s preferences (non-binding events that have been referred to as “advisory primaries,” “beauty contests,” or, in the case of many caucuses, “straw polls”). Still, many states continued (and continue now) to use a series of caucuses, mass meetings, and conventions to pick their delegations, a process that can be murky and complicated. Historically, the candidate preferences of these caucus-determined delegations were more fungible and flexible, as they weren’t necessarily “bound” to any choice. The efforts by different news organizations to estimate delegate support for each candidate were as much art as science.
After the chaotic and controversial 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination after not running in a single primary, the national Democratic Party sought to reform its nomination process. It began to set down an increasingly nationalized set of rules that each state party had to obey, particularly certain guarantees for participation by women and minorities in state delegations and the distribution of delegate support to candidates in proportion to their vote support. This is why many view the 1972 Democratic primary as the first campaign of the “modern” era of presidential politics, as it was the first contest to feature many of these rules.
While the Republican Party also went on to adopt many reforms as well, it importantly has never adopted proportionality as a universal rule, largely leaving delegate allocation methods to the state parties. This has led to a variety of systems, ranging from plurality winner-take-all states, to hybrid proportional states with winner-take-all thresholds, to states that allocated by only the statewide result or others that chiefly use the results in each congressional district, to variants of what are known as “loophole primaries,” where most or all delegates are named individually on the ballot (sometimes without a listed presidential preference) and directly elected by the voters in a congressional district and/or statewide.
Although 2016 will see more stringent rules regarding the binding nature of Republican presidential preference votes under many of these systems, the GOP’s delegate allocation process is still incredibly diverse. Philosophically, this corresponds with each party’s political inclinations: Democrats have embraced a more top-down approach over the last four decades than Republicans, who have left more up to the states.
As such, laying out the winners of individual state primaries and caucuses on the GOP side is harder to do. Yet the maps below seek to present the state-by-state outcomes for competitive Republican presidential nomination contests since 1976, as best can be recorded by election results, newspaper accounts, and election histories. Importantly, the maps attempt to set all things equal by recording the presidential preferences of states in primary elections or, in most cases, the first step in the nomination process in caucus states. In the case of the latter, individual delegates are often selected over the course of many months, and their presidential preferences are not always well defined. In 1976, for example, the first-step presidential preferences in many caucuses were not well documented, were based mostly on speculation, or featured small samplings of precincts that were sometimes highly disputed. Generally, it would have been easier to use the final delegate support votes at the GOP conventions. However, the preferences of delegations in most caucus states (and some primary states, too) shift over time as candidates withdraw from the race. So by using earlier points in the process to measure presidential preference, these maps somewhat diminish the effect of withdrawals on states that decided their eventual delegate support levels late. This standard attempts to make every election a time stamp of sorts on where the race stood in a respective cycle.
In the end, there is no perfect way of determining who won what state if there wasn’t a binding primary result. There are exceptions and notes below some of the maps explaining complications. The maps also attempt to denote (with an asterisk) results that had little or no bearing on the eventual delegate support of the states. Besides most caucuses during this period, such contests also include the aforementioned “beauty contests” and uncommitted delegates elected in “loophole primaries.”
Of the seven nomination cycles presented below, the most noticeable pattern is that one candidate tends to dominate in the end. At least, this has been true since the heavyweight GOP tilt fought between incumbent (but unelected) President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, the last time a nomination for either party went into a convention truly up for grabs. Perhaps the 2016 nomination battle will be the same, with one candidate eventually breaking away from the rest of the pack to win most primaries and caucuses. Or perhaps it will be the next 1976. Election watchers naturally hope for the latter!
As the latest presidential voting begins in 11 days, here’s a look back at the past 40 years of competitive Republican primaries and caucuses. As you survey these maps, note one thing: Despite some big GOP fields over the years, only two or at most three candidates won a state caucus or a primary in a given nomination contest. In other words, many seemingly-promising candidates didn’t even win a single state. It’s something to keep in mind as the 2016 race begins with a dozen candidates. If history is a guide – and it might not be this time — only two or three of 2016’s candidates will ever finish first.
Map 1: 1976 Republican nomination contest
— The Editors
The presidential nomination process has a history of being fuzzy. For much of the nation’s political existence, starting in the 1830s, national party conventions selected nominees for the highest office in the land. At these events, the oft-used term “smoke-filled rooms” described the sometimes behind-the-scenes activity that led to the final selection of a nominee. Sometimes this person was an obvious, well-known national figure; other times, an unexpected, relative unknown captured the nomination.
As time passed, more and more states began to use presidential primaries to either determine the delegate commitments of their state’s representatives at these conventions or to at least indicate the electorate’s preferences (non-binding events that have been referred to as “advisory primaries,” “beauty contests,” or, in the case of many caucuses, “straw polls”). Still, many states continued (and continue now) to use a series of caucuses, mass meetings, and conventions to pick their delegations, a process that can be murky and complicated. Historically, the candidate preferences of these caucus-determined delegations were more fungible and flexible, as they weren’t necessarily “bound” to any choice. The efforts by different news organizations to estimate delegate support for each candidate were as much art as science.
After the chaotic and controversial 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination after not running in a single primary, the national Democratic Party sought to reform its nomination process. It began to set down an increasingly nationalized set of rules that each state party had to obey, particularly certain guarantees for participation by women and minorities in state delegations and the distribution of delegate support to candidates in proportion to their vote support. This is why many view the 1972 Democratic primary as the first campaign of the “modern” era of presidential politics, as it was the first contest to feature many of these rules.
While the Republican Party also went on to adopt many reforms as well, it importantly has never adopted proportionality as a universal rule, largely leaving delegate allocation methods to the state parties. This has led to a variety of systems, ranging from plurality winner-take-all states, to hybrid proportional states with winner-take-all thresholds, to states that allocated by only the statewide result or others that chiefly use the results in each congressional district, to variants of what are known as “loophole primaries,” where most or all delegates are named individually on the ballot (sometimes without a listed presidential preference) and directly elected by the voters in a congressional district and/or statewide.
Although 2016 will see more stringent rules regarding the binding nature of Republican presidential preference votes under many of these systems, the GOP’s delegate allocation process is still incredibly diverse. Philosophically, this corresponds with each party’s political inclinations: Democrats have embraced a more top-down approach over the last four decades than Republicans, who have left more up to the states.
As such, laying out the winners of individual state primaries and caucuses on the GOP side is harder to do. Yet the maps below seek to present the state-by-state outcomes for competitive Republican presidential nomination contests since 1976, as best can be recorded by election results, newspaper accounts, and election histories. Importantly, the maps attempt to set all things equal by recording the presidential preferences of states in primary elections or, in most cases, the first step in the nomination process in caucus states. In the case of the latter, individual delegates are often selected over the course of many months, and their presidential preferences are not always well defined. In 1976, for example, the first-step presidential preferences in many caucuses were not well documented, were based mostly on speculation, or featured small samplings of precincts that were sometimes highly disputed. Generally, it would have been easier to use the final delegate support votes at the GOP conventions. However, the preferences of delegations in most caucus states (and some primary states, too) shift over time as candidates withdraw from the race. So by using earlier points in the process to measure presidential preference, these maps somewhat diminish the effect of withdrawals on states that decided their eventual delegate support levels late. This standard attempts to make every election a time stamp of sorts on where the race stood in a respective cycle.
In the end, there is no perfect way of determining who won what state if there wasn’t a binding primary result. There are exceptions and notes below some of the maps explaining complications. The maps also attempt to denote (with an asterisk) results that had little or no bearing on the eventual delegate support of the states. Besides most caucuses during this period, such contests also include the aforementioned “beauty contests” and uncommitted delegates elected in “loophole primaries.”
Of the seven nomination cycles presented below, the most noticeable pattern is that one candidate tends to dominate in the end. At least, this has been true since the heavyweight GOP tilt fought between incumbent (but unelected) President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, the last time a nomination for either party went into a convention truly up for grabs. Perhaps the 2016 nomination battle will be the same, with one candidate eventually breaking away from the rest of the pack to win most primaries and caucuses. Or perhaps it will be the next 1976. Election watchers naturally hope for the latter!
As the latest presidential voting begins in 11 days, here’s a look back at the past 40 years of competitive Republican primaries and caucuses. As you survey these maps, note one thing: Despite some big GOP fields over the years, only two or at most three candidates won a state caucus or a primary in a given nomination contest. In other words, many seemingly-promising candidates didn’t even win a single state. It’s something to keep in mind as the 2016 race begins with a dozen candidates. If history is a guide – and it might not be this time — only two or three of 2016’s candidates will ever finish first.
Map 1: 1976 Republican nomination contest
Map 2: 1980 Republican nomination contest
Map 3: 1988 Republican nomination contest
Map 4: 1996 Republican nomination contest
Map 5: 2000 Republican nomination contest
Map 6: 2008 Republican nomination contest
Map 7: 2012 Republican nomination contest
Notes: *Indicates that the primary or caucus in question was non-binding regarding delegates. Note that there are inconsistencies regarding how binding a contest truly was, especially the further back in time the election took place. The dates of many caucuses reflect the last day of a meeting period or the day of the straw poll in question. These events sometimes take days, weeks, or even months. In a few cases, the maps denote that a state used a two-step caucus (or convention) and primary system, in some order, to determine delegates.
Sources: Crystal Ball research; CQ Press Guide to U.S. Elections, 6th edition; CQ Weekly; Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections; FrontloadingHQ; The Green Papers; Anthony J. Bennett, The Race for the White House from Reagan to Clinton
© Copyright by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
The True Goals of the Brady Center and the Progressive Gun Grabbers! America Beware!!
January 19, 2016
Hillary, the Brady Campaign, and the real gun control agenda
By Thomas Lifson
The true goals of the Brady Center, formerly known as Handgun Control, Incorporated, have been exposed thanks to archival research in the Clinton Library undertaken by Dave Hardy. Brady is a very important nonprofit organization, which has worked closely with anti-gun politicians to achieve its ultimate goal: the end of private firearms ownership and the abrogation of the Second Amendment.
The Brady Campaign has long claimed that its agenda is limited. Just some “reasonable, common-sense” gun restrictions—no need for anyone to worry about confiscation or onerous regulations. Brady officials would prefer that no gun owner read the words of its former chairman Nelson “Pete” Shields—the man who put the organization on the political map. In the July 26, 1976, issue of The New Yorker, Shields gave an interview and summed up the group’s program. Saying that for now his organization would have to accept that half a loaf is better than none, and that for now he’d “be happy to take just a slice,” he explained:
“Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to 10 years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/hillary_the_brady_campa...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Hillary, the Brady Campaign, and the real gun control agenda
By Thomas Lifson
The true goals of the Brady Center, formerly known as Handgun Control, Incorporated, have been exposed thanks to archival research in the Clinton Library undertaken by Dave Hardy. Brady is a very important nonprofit organization, which has worked closely with anti-gun politicians to achieve its ultimate goal: the end of private firearms ownership and the abrogation of the Second Amendment.
The Brady Campaign has long claimed that its agenda is limited. Just some “reasonable, common-sense” gun restrictions—no need for anyone to worry about confiscation or onerous regulations. Brady officials would prefer that no gun owner read the words of its former chairman Nelson “Pete” Shields—the man who put the organization on the political map. In the July 26, 1976, issue of The New Yorker, Shields gave an interview and summed up the group’s program. Saying that for now his organization would have to accept that half a loaf is better than none, and that for now he’d “be happy to take just a slice,” he explained:
“Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to 10 years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/hillary_the_brady_campa...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
ecipe for Chaos in Texas
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is not qualified a Constitutional Scholar. She was a speech writer and then a Journalist - just wrong but like Publius Huldah she sells books, TV videos and makes speeches.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site."http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
That article by Phyllis was written in response to this;
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is not qualified a Constitutional Scholar. She was a speech writer and then a Journalist - just wrong but like Publius Huldah she sells books, TV videos and makes speeches.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site."http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
That article by Phyllis was written in response to this;
We are pleased to announce that Governor Abbott had decided to take a bold step in both endorsing the Convention of States here in Texas, but offering his suggestions for amendments in a full-throttle approach to putting Washington back in its Constitutional box. Please read this announcement and pass along to your state representatives and friends. You can listen to his entire speech here.
For Liberty,
Tamara Colbert and Paul Hodson
Directors for Texas
Convention of States Project
Director.TX@cosaction.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Tamara Colbert
Phone: C – (626) 244-5571
TColbert@selfgovern.com
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT – TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT ENDORSES THE CONVENTION OF STATES
“Our government was founded on the rule of law rather the caprice of man.” — Gov. Abbott
Dallas, TX, Jan 8, 2016 – Statement from Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and co-founder of the Convention of States Project: “We are gratified that Governor Abbott has responded to the grassroots movement in Texas and is endorsing our call for a convention of states. Like the grassroots, Governor Abbott understands that we must use the constitution to save the constitution. The tens of thousands of Convention of States volunteers in Texas thank him for his leadership. We look forward to seeing many more governors follow in his footsteps.”
At the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s breakfast yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn said, “As Americans we have to stand up across the nation against the federal government. God granted us freedoms, not the federal government. Article V gives us a way to rebalance power in the federal government.”
The Texas Convention of States team has been working since September 2013 to organize and grow the grassroots army in the state. Today, more than 40,000 Texans are actively engaged in educating their state representatives and senators, as well as their communities. The state has a full leadership team, as well as 117 District Captains in 117 Texas House Districts.
In 2015, HJR 77, led by Representative Rick Miller (HD-26), the Convention of States Article V resolution passed through the house 80-62 and went to the Senate led by Senator Paul Bettencourt (SD-07), but did not get out of the State Affairs Committee.
Governor Abbott, in his Texas Public Policy Foundation keynote address, stated this about what he is calling “The Texas Plan”: “Our government was founded on the rule of law rather the caprice of man. That rule of law flows from our Constitution. That Constitutional foundations is now so often ignored that the Founders would hardly recognize it. Until we fix that foundation by restoring the rule of law all the repairs we seek through the policies you propose will never lead to lasting solutions.”
More and more statesmen and constitutional experts—the ones who revere our Constitution and have dedicated their lives to defending its principles—are stepping up to urge citizens and state legislators to use this constitutional tool before it is too late.
These include such well-known political figures as retired U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (OK), Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Col. Allen West. They are joined by conservative legal heavyweights Robert P. George (Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom), Randy Barnett (mastermind behind Obamacare challenge), C. Boyden Gray (Bush 41 Counsel Ambassador), Mat Staver (VP and Prof. of Law at Liberty University), Andrew McCarthy (former Chief Asst. U.S. Atty. for NY, who led terrorism prosecution against the “Blind Sheik”), Dr. John Eastman, (Dir. Ctr. For Const. Jurisprudence – Chapman Univ. Fowler School of Law), Charles Cooper (outside counsel for NRA, clerk for Justice Rehnquist, and Asst. Atty. Gen. for Office of Legal Counsel, Reagan Administration), and Professor Nelson Lund (2nd Amendment scholar, George Mason University School of Law).
For the full release please go to www.conventionofstates.com/news.
About the Convention of States Project
The Convention of States Project is currently organized in all 50 states, including almost one million volunteers, supporters and advocates committed to stopping the federal government’s abuse of power. Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have passed our Article V resolution since the project launched in 2013. In 2015, the COS Project filed our resolutions in 37 states. For more information visitwww.ConventionofStates.com.
-END-
Convention of States Action · PO Box 1073, Purcellville, VA 20134, United States
ED. Note: I Prefer The Texas Method Over The Schlafly fear tinged rhetoric
For Liberty,
Tamara Colbert and Paul Hodson
Directors for Texas
Convention of States Project
Director.TX@cosaction.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Tamara Colbert
Phone: C – (626) 244-5571
TColbert@selfgovern.com
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT – TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT ENDORSES THE CONVENTION OF STATES
“Our government was founded on the rule of law rather the caprice of man.” — Gov. Abbott
Dallas, TX, Jan 8, 2016 – Statement from Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and co-founder of the Convention of States Project: “We are gratified that Governor Abbott has responded to the grassroots movement in Texas and is endorsing our call for a convention of states. Like the grassroots, Governor Abbott understands that we must use the constitution to save the constitution. The tens of thousands of Convention of States volunteers in Texas thank him for his leadership. We look forward to seeing many more governors follow in his footsteps.”
At the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s breakfast yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn said, “As Americans we have to stand up across the nation against the federal government. God granted us freedoms, not the federal government. Article V gives us a way to rebalance power in the federal government.”
The Texas Convention of States team has been working since September 2013 to organize and grow the grassroots army in the state. Today, more than 40,000 Texans are actively engaged in educating their state representatives and senators, as well as their communities. The state has a full leadership team, as well as 117 District Captains in 117 Texas House Districts.
In 2015, HJR 77, led by Representative Rick Miller (HD-26), the Convention of States Article V resolution passed through the house 80-62 and went to the Senate led by Senator Paul Bettencourt (SD-07), but did not get out of the State Affairs Committee.
Governor Abbott, in his Texas Public Policy Foundation keynote address, stated this about what he is calling “The Texas Plan”: “Our government was founded on the rule of law rather the caprice of man. That rule of law flows from our Constitution. That Constitutional foundations is now so often ignored that the Founders would hardly recognize it. Until we fix that foundation by restoring the rule of law all the repairs we seek through the policies you propose will never lead to lasting solutions.”
More and more statesmen and constitutional experts—the ones who revere our Constitution and have dedicated their lives to defending its principles—are stepping up to urge citizens and state legislators to use this constitutional tool before it is too late.
These include such well-known political figures as retired U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (OK), Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Col. Allen West. They are joined by conservative legal heavyweights Robert P. George (Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom), Randy Barnett (mastermind behind Obamacare challenge), C. Boyden Gray (Bush 41 Counsel Ambassador), Mat Staver (VP and Prof. of Law at Liberty University), Andrew McCarthy (former Chief Asst. U.S. Atty. for NY, who led terrorism prosecution against the “Blind Sheik”), Dr. John Eastman, (Dir. Ctr. For Const. Jurisprudence – Chapman Univ. Fowler School of Law), Charles Cooper (outside counsel for NRA, clerk for Justice Rehnquist, and Asst. Atty. Gen. for Office of Legal Counsel, Reagan Administration), and Professor Nelson Lund (2nd Amendment scholar, George Mason University School of Law).
For the full release please go to www.conventionofstates.com/news.
About the Convention of States Project
The Convention of States Project is currently organized in all 50 states, including almost one million volunteers, supporters and advocates committed to stopping the federal government’s abuse of power. Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have passed our Article V resolution since the project launched in 2013. In 2015, the COS Project filed our resolutions in 37 states. For more information visitwww.ConventionofStates.com.
-END-
Convention of States Action · PO Box 1073, Purcellville, VA 20134, United States
ED. Note: I Prefer The Texas Method Over The Schlafly fear tinged rhetoric
American Lands Council Legal Analysis Background Part 1
If you have been watching the news, you realize that now, more than ever, it is critical to educate everyone around you that there is a legal, constitutional and realistic way to resolve the serious problems facing the nation that have come from the Federal Government failing to keep its constitutional obligations to dispose of the public lands to the states.
Some of the top legal experts in the nation have come together as part of Utah's Legal Team and released an amazing legal analysis that spells out the carefully well documented case for transferring the public lands over to all willing western states, as was promised in our Enabling Acts. Please share these emails with your friends, colleagues and elected officials and help diffuse the frustration, and miseducation that still pervades in many parts of our nation and help us all stand united as we move forward to restore better access, health and productivity to our nation's public lands.
(Historical Background Part 1 excerpts pages 10-23 of the UT TPL Legal Analysis. Click here for the full Legal Analysis and here the the bios of the Legal Team.)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - PART ONE
The Equal Sovereignty Principle and the Equal Footing Doctrine, together with the legal and historical precedent discussed below, conclude that the federal government must treat all States as equal. Indeed, Utah’s enabling act promised that she would be admitted on “an equal footing with the original States.” It was against the historical background of equal treatment that Congress and Utah engaged in the admission process, and documented an understanding that the United States would continue the timely disposal of the public lands within Utah’s borders, just as the United States had always done in previously admitted States with public lands. In fact, however, Congress breached this understanding. As a result of that breach, Utah has been treated as decidedly less than an equal sovereign, a result, as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Shelby, the Constitution does not allow.
It has been said that the law is philosophy applied to history. The law we have been asked to analyze is uniquely informed by early American history. Indeed, it is not possible to understand the law’s meaning and scope without a full understanding of applicable American history, even that history predating the adoption of our Constitution.
We shall show that the historical context indicates that the equal sovereignty of the States was a foundational principle of our Nation, and that dominion over land was a critical component of that equal sovereignty. When the original Union was being formed under the Articles of Confederation, Maryland insisted that all the landed States should cede their Western territories so they could be sold by the United States to pay the Revolutionary War debt “and be settled and formed into distinct republican States which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.”
Each of the original thirteen States, and the next three that entered the Union — Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee — received all the vacant, unappropriated Crown lands upon their admission to the Union. States admitted thereafter with public lands obtained dominion over the land within their borders through federal public land policy that stimulated disposal and settlement of that land.
All States understood that the federal government would temporarily hold public lands for so long as it took to sell them to create a common fund to pay the public debt. As the Supreme Court explained in Pollard v. Hagan:
This right originated in voluntary surrenders, made by several of the old states, of their waste and unappropriated lands, to the United States, under a resolution of the old Congress, of the 6th of September, 1780, recommending such surrender and cession, to aid in paying the public debt, incurred by the war of the Revolution. The object of all the parties to these contracts of cession, was to convert the land into money for the payment of the debt, and to erect new states over the territory thus ceded; and as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands, as property, was to cease (emphasis added).
In short, the historical record shows that when Utah joined the Union — when the United States admitted Utah into the Union and Utah agreed to become a State within the United States – the United States and Utah understood that the United States would, within a reasonable time, dispose of the public lands that it then owned, and admit Utah to the Union with “the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.” The text of the documents admitting Utah as a State cannot properly be interpreted divorced from that historical context.
As we shall see, Congress promised the regular and prompt disposal of public lands under its control many times over the course of the history of the United States. Congress delivered on this promise for nearly two hundred years, actively promoting the settlement, transfer, and development of public lands in State after State. Then, in 1976 Congress reversed its longstanding promise of orderly disposition with the passage of FLPMA. Because Congress breached this understanding, the United States owns very little land east of Colorado and New Mexico but the majority of the land from those points west. If the eastern States had explicitly determined to enjoy disproportionate political and commercial power compared to the western States as was unsuccessfully proposed by Elbridge Gerry at the Constitutional Convention, they would have done exactly what has been done. That result was rejected as unfair and unacceptable by the Framers, and the history and jurisprudence discussed below suggest that the Court would reject it as unfair and unacceptable today.
Now, let us turn to the historical and legal background that led to this situation.
1. The Nature of Sovereignty
Sovereignty, in the conduct of collective human activity, is the right of a people or a government to conduct its internal affairs in accordance with its discrete rulemaking mechanisms. The “sovereign,” whether a monarch, sultan, dictator, or nation-state, has the power to: make laws for the governance of a people; impose taxes; enforce laws; enter into agreements and treaties with other sovereign peoples and states; conduct national trade; raise armies and navies; act on behalf of the state in relation to other sovereigns; conduct national and internal defense for the protection of the state and its people; and acquire, own and dispose of land in the name of the sovereign by right of purchase, conquest or discovery.
A national government must act on behalf of the population it governs in its relations with foreign powers and as an internal organizing force for the management of a society. It is invested with independence and the power to act for a people. The incidents of sovereignty, therefore, are all powers necessary for the advancement of a nation. Government’s overarching jurisdiction invests it with coercive power sufficient for the protection of its citizens, though our government is founded on the principle that its legitimate purpose is the protection of individual liberty.
2. Sovereign Acquisition of Territory
a) Acquisition by Conquest
Until the rise of empire, collective human affairs were tribal, ethnic, and relatively small. Early annals of tribal conflict indicate that tribes or city-states engaged in wars that resulted in conquest and the concomitant acquisition of the land of those they conquered. With the rise of empire began the collection and organization of large multi-ethnic populations and the acquisition of huge territories. No one questioned the legitimacy of territorial acquisition by right of conquest, and no legal mechanism existed for contesting the seizure of land through force. Imperial expansion, then, was largely carried out by conquest among competing empires.
b) Acquisition by Discovery
Later, during the Age of Discovery, a theory arose that was largely accepted by the leading imperial powers: acquisition by right of discovery. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 began the international codification of what had previously been an assumption: that nations can engage in territorial expansion by right of discovery.
In Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,16 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
But as [the European Powers] were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.17
c) Title to Unoccupied Colonial Lands Vested in the Crown by Discovery
Thus did the British Empire lay claim to much of North America and exercised its sovereign privilege by asserting title to all “unoccupied” land.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative [sovereignty].
The British Empire successively claimed all lands described in the royal charters that established its colonies in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Massachusetts by right of Crown sovereignty.
It is a settled doctrine with us that all valid individual title to land within the United States is derived from grants from or under the authority of the governments of England, Sweden, Holland, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, the chartered and crown colonies or the Government of the United States and the several States of the Union.
The English possessions in America were claimed by right of discovery. Having been discovered by the subjects of the King of England and taken possession of same in his name, by his authority or with his assent, they were held by the King as the representative of and in trust for the nation; all vacant lands, and the exclusive power to grant them, were vested in him. (The Public Domain, It’s History; Thomas Donaldson: Report to House of Representatives of the United States of America; Public Lands Commission, 1884, page 158. Hereafter “Donaldson”)
3. Nature of Land Ownership in Colonial North Americaa)
Socage and the Sovereignty of the Crown Over Land
Under the charter of King James I, the lands of the first and second colonies of Virginia were to be held by the mildest form of feudal tenure, “free and common socage.” Under this regime, title to land continued to rest in the sovereign and those granted tenure received it subject to the rendering of duties to the landholding lord (the Crown of England, in most cases). Blackstone described it as follows:
Socage, in its most general and extensive signification, seems to denote a tenure by any certain or determinate service. And in this sense it is by our ancient writers constantly put in opposition to chivalry, or knight-service, where the render was precarious and uncertain.
Landholding in the colonies under “socage” was a lesser form of right than that known today. It was not quite fee simple ownership, in that it confirmed the sovereign rights of the Crown, and the Crown’s sovereign ownership of the land. “The usual tenure of the colonial grants, after Raleigh’s first one, was free and common socage.” This confirmed the primacy of the Crown and its ownership of land, occupied and otherwise, as an incident of its sovereignty.
b) Abolishment of Feudal Ownership
This Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the Confederation Congress, was the first general legislation in the United States on the subject of real property and it changed the nature of land ownership throughout the now free States. After the American Revolution, most of the States abolished all forms of feudal ownership, including free and common socage, and the Northwest Ordinance abolished the practice as a matter of national policy.
4. Independence
In 1774, the Royal Colonies met in convention, referred to as the “Continental Congress,” to discuss their joint grievances with the Crown. The convention drafted documents of protest at the colonies’ treatment at the hands of the Crown. When the colonists’ remonstrances were unsuccessful, a second convention was called and representatives of all the colonies attended.
The Second Continental Congress served as a convention of colonies – soon to be independent States – to seek ways to act jointly with respect to issues of common concern. It was a conclave of separate and independent colonies intended to move those colonies to act in concert with one another with respect to colonial relations with the Crown. It convened in the summer of 1775, some months after armed hostilities signaled that the American war for independence had begun. Its delegates, again chosen by their respective colonies, represented the separate interests of their respective colonies.
On May 6, 1776, Virginia declared its independence from the Crown, and the other colonies followed on July 4, 1776. By these acts, the colonies effectively became free and independent nations inheriting all sovereign rights and powers of the Crown within their borders.
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.
5. The Original States Succeeded to Ownership of all Crown Land
The term “state” -- meaning “a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government”31 -- was purposefully chosen by the Founders to signify that each colony was a sovereign body enjoying all powers of sovereignty inhering in nation-states. The term “nation-state” was a topic of considerable discussion in the 18th Century and enjoyed broad intellectual and political currency. It was intended to describe a discrete, independent government exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a defined geographical area. The new “states” adopted the title to describe what they intended as the nature of the newly sovereign States. Each State operated (and still operates) independently of every other State. Each established and maintained separate court systems, legislatures, executives, regulatory schemes, systems of taxation and governance, criminal and civil laws, voting qualifications, and so forth.
The separate and complete sovereignty of the original States was sufficiently important to the founding generation that they enshrined it in their first formal treaty, the Articles of Confederation, Article II. The States’ succession to the sovereignty of the Crown has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Court. As independent sovereigns, the States established separate governments; adopted State constitutions; enacted criminal and civil statutes; imposed taxes and imposts; established and maintained courts; and succeeded to all other incidents and prerogatives of the sovereignty previously enjoyed by the Crown in North America, including ownership of all vacant and unappropriated land within their borders.
Each of the original thirteen States – and the three that followed, Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – succeeded to ownership of all vacant, unappropriated Crown lands and disposed of same over time for their own part thereafter.
6. Conflicting Western Land Claims
Both before and after independence, the States competed with one another in commerce and trade, foreign policy, and territory. The States had their own monetary systems and placed tariffs on the trade of goods between one another. Each raised its own militia and maintained its own defenses.
No area of controversy was more heated than the landed States’ claims to the “Western Lands,” consisting mainly of what were referred to as “vast waste lands” east of the Mississippi River and south of Canada. Of the thirteen colonies, six had carefully defined western borders and no claims to any western lands, while seven asserted colorable claims to the western lands. Three – Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia -- laid claim to land extending to the Pacific Ocean. Virginia, the first colony, had vast land claims -- as far north as present-day Canada and as far west as present day California -- and jealously guarded those claims. The map below illustrates various conflicting claims east of the Mississippi and cessions to the Federal government circa 1782 to 1802.
Some of the top legal experts in the nation have come together as part of Utah's Legal Team and released an amazing legal analysis that spells out the carefully well documented case for transferring the public lands over to all willing western states, as was promised in our Enabling Acts. Please share these emails with your friends, colleagues and elected officials and help diffuse the frustration, and miseducation that still pervades in many parts of our nation and help us all stand united as we move forward to restore better access, health and productivity to our nation's public lands.
(Historical Background Part 1 excerpts pages 10-23 of the UT TPL Legal Analysis. Click here for the full Legal Analysis and here the the bios of the Legal Team.)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - PART ONE
The Equal Sovereignty Principle and the Equal Footing Doctrine, together with the legal and historical precedent discussed below, conclude that the federal government must treat all States as equal. Indeed, Utah’s enabling act promised that she would be admitted on “an equal footing with the original States.” It was against the historical background of equal treatment that Congress and Utah engaged in the admission process, and documented an understanding that the United States would continue the timely disposal of the public lands within Utah’s borders, just as the United States had always done in previously admitted States with public lands. In fact, however, Congress breached this understanding. As a result of that breach, Utah has been treated as decidedly less than an equal sovereign, a result, as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Shelby, the Constitution does not allow.
It has been said that the law is philosophy applied to history. The law we have been asked to analyze is uniquely informed by early American history. Indeed, it is not possible to understand the law’s meaning and scope without a full understanding of applicable American history, even that history predating the adoption of our Constitution.
We shall show that the historical context indicates that the equal sovereignty of the States was a foundational principle of our Nation, and that dominion over land was a critical component of that equal sovereignty. When the original Union was being formed under the Articles of Confederation, Maryland insisted that all the landed States should cede their Western territories so they could be sold by the United States to pay the Revolutionary War debt “and be settled and formed into distinct republican States which shall become members of the Federal Union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.”
Each of the original thirteen States, and the next three that entered the Union — Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee — received all the vacant, unappropriated Crown lands upon their admission to the Union. States admitted thereafter with public lands obtained dominion over the land within their borders through federal public land policy that stimulated disposal and settlement of that land.
All States understood that the federal government would temporarily hold public lands for so long as it took to sell them to create a common fund to pay the public debt. As the Supreme Court explained in Pollard v. Hagan:
This right originated in voluntary surrenders, made by several of the old states, of their waste and unappropriated lands, to the United States, under a resolution of the old Congress, of the 6th of September, 1780, recommending such surrender and cession, to aid in paying the public debt, incurred by the war of the Revolution. The object of all the parties to these contracts of cession, was to convert the land into money for the payment of the debt, and to erect new states over the territory thus ceded; and as soon as these purposes could be accomplished, the power of the United States over these lands, as property, was to cease (emphasis added).
In short, the historical record shows that when Utah joined the Union — when the United States admitted Utah into the Union and Utah agreed to become a State within the United States – the United States and Utah understood that the United States would, within a reasonable time, dispose of the public lands that it then owned, and admit Utah to the Union with “the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.” The text of the documents admitting Utah as a State cannot properly be interpreted divorced from that historical context.
As we shall see, Congress promised the regular and prompt disposal of public lands under its control many times over the course of the history of the United States. Congress delivered on this promise for nearly two hundred years, actively promoting the settlement, transfer, and development of public lands in State after State. Then, in 1976 Congress reversed its longstanding promise of orderly disposition with the passage of FLPMA. Because Congress breached this understanding, the United States owns very little land east of Colorado and New Mexico but the majority of the land from those points west. If the eastern States had explicitly determined to enjoy disproportionate political and commercial power compared to the western States as was unsuccessfully proposed by Elbridge Gerry at the Constitutional Convention, they would have done exactly what has been done. That result was rejected as unfair and unacceptable by the Framers, and the history and jurisprudence discussed below suggest that the Court would reject it as unfair and unacceptable today.
Now, let us turn to the historical and legal background that led to this situation.
1. The Nature of Sovereignty
Sovereignty, in the conduct of collective human activity, is the right of a people or a government to conduct its internal affairs in accordance with its discrete rulemaking mechanisms. The “sovereign,” whether a monarch, sultan, dictator, or nation-state, has the power to: make laws for the governance of a people; impose taxes; enforce laws; enter into agreements and treaties with other sovereign peoples and states; conduct national trade; raise armies and navies; act on behalf of the state in relation to other sovereigns; conduct national and internal defense for the protection of the state and its people; and acquire, own and dispose of land in the name of the sovereign by right of purchase, conquest or discovery.
A national government must act on behalf of the population it governs in its relations with foreign powers and as an internal organizing force for the management of a society. It is invested with independence and the power to act for a people. The incidents of sovereignty, therefore, are all powers necessary for the advancement of a nation. Government’s overarching jurisdiction invests it with coercive power sufficient for the protection of its citizens, though our government is founded on the principle that its legitimate purpose is the protection of individual liberty.
2. Sovereign Acquisition of Territory
a) Acquisition by Conquest
Until the rise of empire, collective human affairs were tribal, ethnic, and relatively small. Early annals of tribal conflict indicate that tribes or city-states engaged in wars that resulted in conquest and the concomitant acquisition of the land of those they conquered. With the rise of empire began the collection and organization of large multi-ethnic populations and the acquisition of huge territories. No one questioned the legitimacy of territorial acquisition by right of conquest, and no legal mechanism existed for contesting the seizure of land through force. Imperial expansion, then, was largely carried out by conquest among competing empires.
b) Acquisition by Discovery
Later, during the Age of Discovery, a theory arose that was largely accepted by the leading imperial powers: acquisition by right of discovery. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 began the international codification of what had previously been an assumption: that nations can engage in territorial expansion by right of discovery.
In Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,16 Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
But as [the European Powers] were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.17
c) Title to Unoccupied Colonial Lands Vested in the Crown by Discovery
Thus did the British Empire lay claim to much of North America and exercised its sovereign privilege by asserting title to all “unoccupied” land.
According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown as a branch of the royal prerogative [sovereignty].
The British Empire successively claimed all lands described in the royal charters that established its colonies in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Massachusetts by right of Crown sovereignty.
It is a settled doctrine with us that all valid individual title to land within the United States is derived from grants from or under the authority of the governments of England, Sweden, Holland, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, the chartered and crown colonies or the Government of the United States and the several States of the Union.
The English possessions in America were claimed by right of discovery. Having been discovered by the subjects of the King of England and taken possession of same in his name, by his authority or with his assent, they were held by the King as the representative of and in trust for the nation; all vacant lands, and the exclusive power to grant them, were vested in him. (The Public Domain, It’s History; Thomas Donaldson: Report to House of Representatives of the United States of America; Public Lands Commission, 1884, page 158. Hereafter “Donaldson”)
3. Nature of Land Ownership in Colonial North Americaa)
Socage and the Sovereignty of the Crown Over Land
Under the charter of King James I, the lands of the first and second colonies of Virginia were to be held by the mildest form of feudal tenure, “free and common socage.” Under this regime, title to land continued to rest in the sovereign and those granted tenure received it subject to the rendering of duties to the landholding lord (the Crown of England, in most cases). Blackstone described it as follows:
Socage, in its most general and extensive signification, seems to denote a tenure by any certain or determinate service. And in this sense it is by our ancient writers constantly put in opposition to chivalry, or knight-service, where the render was precarious and uncertain.
Landholding in the colonies under “socage” was a lesser form of right than that known today. It was not quite fee simple ownership, in that it confirmed the sovereign rights of the Crown, and the Crown’s sovereign ownership of the land. “The usual tenure of the colonial grants, after Raleigh’s first one, was free and common socage.” This confirmed the primacy of the Crown and its ownership of land, occupied and otherwise, as an incident of its sovereignty.
b) Abolishment of Feudal Ownership
This Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the Confederation Congress, was the first general legislation in the United States on the subject of real property and it changed the nature of land ownership throughout the now free States. After the American Revolution, most of the States abolished all forms of feudal ownership, including free and common socage, and the Northwest Ordinance abolished the practice as a matter of national policy.
4. Independence
In 1774, the Royal Colonies met in convention, referred to as the “Continental Congress,” to discuss their joint grievances with the Crown. The convention drafted documents of protest at the colonies’ treatment at the hands of the Crown. When the colonists’ remonstrances were unsuccessful, a second convention was called and representatives of all the colonies attended.
The Second Continental Congress served as a convention of colonies – soon to be independent States – to seek ways to act jointly with respect to issues of common concern. It was a conclave of separate and independent colonies intended to move those colonies to act in concert with one another with respect to colonial relations with the Crown. It convened in the summer of 1775, some months after armed hostilities signaled that the American war for independence had begun. Its delegates, again chosen by their respective colonies, represented the separate interests of their respective colonies.
On May 6, 1776, Virginia declared its independence from the Crown, and the other colonies followed on July 4, 1776. By these acts, the colonies effectively became free and independent nations inheriting all sovereign rights and powers of the Crown within their borders.
In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.
5. The Original States Succeeded to Ownership of all Crown Land
The term “state” -- meaning “a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government”31 -- was purposefully chosen by the Founders to signify that each colony was a sovereign body enjoying all powers of sovereignty inhering in nation-states. The term “nation-state” was a topic of considerable discussion in the 18th Century and enjoyed broad intellectual and political currency. It was intended to describe a discrete, independent government exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a defined geographical area. The new “states” adopted the title to describe what they intended as the nature of the newly sovereign States. Each State operated (and still operates) independently of every other State. Each established and maintained separate court systems, legislatures, executives, regulatory schemes, systems of taxation and governance, criminal and civil laws, voting qualifications, and so forth.
The separate and complete sovereignty of the original States was sufficiently important to the founding generation that they enshrined it in their first formal treaty, the Articles of Confederation, Article II. The States’ succession to the sovereignty of the Crown has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Court. As independent sovereigns, the States established separate governments; adopted State constitutions; enacted criminal and civil statutes; imposed taxes and imposts; established and maintained courts; and succeeded to all other incidents and prerogatives of the sovereignty previously enjoyed by the Crown in North America, including ownership of all vacant and unappropriated land within their borders.
Each of the original thirteen States – and the three that followed, Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – succeeded to ownership of all vacant, unappropriated Crown lands and disposed of same over time for their own part thereafter.
6. Conflicting Western Land Claims
Both before and after independence, the States competed with one another in commerce and trade, foreign policy, and territory. The States had their own monetary systems and placed tariffs on the trade of goods between one another. Each raised its own militia and maintained its own defenses.
No area of controversy was more heated than the landed States’ claims to the “Western Lands,” consisting mainly of what were referred to as “vast waste lands” east of the Mississippi River and south of Canada. Of the thirteen colonies, six had carefully defined western borders and no claims to any western lands, while seven asserted colorable claims to the western lands. Three – Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia -- laid claim to land extending to the Pacific Ocean. Virginia, the first colony, had vast land claims -- as far north as present-day Canada and as far west as present day California -- and jealously guarded those claims. The map below illustrates various conflicting claims east of the Mississippi and cessions to the Federal government circa 1782 to 1802.
In 1774, when the First Continental Congress was assembled, the continent was rife with competing claims to western lands and sometimes pointed debate among the colonies with respect to the defensibility of those claims. The conflict was driven, at least in part, by an appreciation of the tremendous wealth the lands represented. The conflicts also encouraged separatist movements that threatened the unity and strength of the not yet fully united colonies. In addition to the problems created by the conflicting claims among the “landed” States to western lands, the very fact that these claims were made created problems between the “landed States,” on the one hand, and the “landlocked States” on the other. Maryland was the first to express its great concern that the landlocked States would be politically and economically consumed by their larger neighbors. The conflicting interests related to the western lands seemed insurmountable. Just when the colonies most needed unity, they became paralyzed over an impasse with respect to the western lands issue. We describe the Western Lands Impasse and its resolution in detail because it is critical to the proper understanding of the Equal Sovereignty Principle, the Equal Footing Doctrine, and the Property Clause.
(End of the Historical Background Part 1 excerpt of the Legal Analysis)
Time to Take Action
Over the coming days, follow this UT TPL Legal Analysis Blog as we review section by section this groundbreaking Legal Analysis that is opening the door to advance the only solution big enough for the environmental, economic and constitutional predicaments facing our nation -- #FreeTheLands for more effective, locally driven management of our unique western lands!
Be sure to share this blog with everyone you know (especially your local, state, and national representative and leaders) who desire to be part of unleashing a constitutional and economic renaissance in our nation.
Most importantly, Click here to Get Involved today!
In our unique system of government, WE are the Boss. But, if we want to be treated like the Boss, WE have to act like the Boss!
There will be many in 2016 at the local, state and national levels who will be applying (campaigning) for a job to represent you. Make sure they have the Knowledge and Courage to be a modern-day Thomas Hart Benton, relentlessly committed do their utmost to #FreeTheLands!
American Lands Council
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/American Lands Council · 859 W South Jordan Pkwy, 100, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States
(End of the Historical Background Part 1 excerpt of the Legal Analysis)
Time to Take Action
Over the coming days, follow this UT TPL Legal Analysis Blog as we review section by section this groundbreaking Legal Analysis that is opening the door to advance the only solution big enough for the environmental, economic and constitutional predicaments facing our nation -- #FreeTheLands for more effective, locally driven management of our unique western lands!
Be sure to share this blog with everyone you know (especially your local, state, and national representative and leaders) who desire to be part of unleashing a constitutional and economic renaissance in our nation.
Most importantly, Click here to Get Involved today!
In our unique system of government, WE are the Boss. But, if we want to be treated like the Boss, WE have to act like the Boss!
There will be many in 2016 at the local, state and national levels who will be applying (campaigning) for a job to represent you. Make sure they have the Knowledge and Courage to be a modern-day Thomas Hart Benton, relentlessly committed do their utmost to #FreeTheLands!
American Lands Council
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/American Lands Council · 859 W South Jordan Pkwy, 100, South Jordan, UT 84095, United States
Opinion by McFixit1;
One of the most pressing reasons why we need to Repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments ASAP.
For the first time on Jan.1,2016, Guns May Be Seized By Authorities W/Out Notice. Happy New "Enslavement" Year Everyone unless we stop this Constitution shredding overreach.
Source; http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/29/california-law-allowing-seizur...
As with all our Nanny Governments past ploys, California is again being used as a test bed for more and harsher restrictions. Remember where the Gasoline changes started? Remember where the Air Pollution Standards started? Remember where the Environmental Laws got Started? Remember where just about every Progressive restriction got started?
Well, it's happening again, and this time it's going to affect our Second Amendment to the point that it may as well not even be there. Starting Jan.1, 2016 a California "Gun Safety Law" will go into effect that gives Judges the right to arbitrarily confiscate a persons guns if the Judge decides there's a "Potential For Violence" That's all it takes, No 'Guidelines' nor 'Burden of Proof' required or mentioned.
Excerpt from source; ( http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abigail-wilkinson/ca-bill-would-all... )
A.B. 1014, which was introduced last year by Assembly members Das Williams (D-Carpinteria) and Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), allows a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order and a firearm seizure warrant based on the “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons“ or the “reckless use, display, or brandishing” of firearms even if no crime has been committed.
The bill “would authorize any member of the general public” – including “a disgruntled neighbor, a former employee, an ex-girlfriend, or any other scorned or vindictive individual” - to file a ‘gun violence restraining order’ against “someone they ‘think’ shouldn’t have a firearm,”the NRA said in a letter to committee members.
In addition to evidence of threats or acts of violence, the bill would also allow a judge to consider a gun owner’s past non-violent convictions when issuing a secret seizure warrant, the NRA pointed out.
In the case of A.B. 1014, however, “law enforcement officers will be entering the homes of law-abiding individuals with guns drawn and orders to seize all firearms in sight,” .
“The idea that police officers will be legally obligated to treat citizens who in many cases aren’t even accused of a crime as dangerous, armed individuals is a new and disturbing innovation in the law,”
Bear in mind that California has some of the most draconian gun laws on the books in America, and then extrapolate out to what Obama has flatly stated he will be doing with executive actions. What better way around Congress and more so the will of the majority of the people?
This may be the future of American Citizens when the Progressive Oligarchy becomes the rule of the land.“The idea that police officers will be legally obligated to treat citizens who in many cases aren’t even accused of a crime as dangerous, armed individuals is a new and disturbing innovation in the law,” That is the most chilling Statist/Progressive pronouncement and agenda ever seen in America. This is the beginning of our return to enslavement by a "Ruling Class" of Pseudo Monarchy.
What ever happened to the american Legal Standard that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? The Onus of Proof has descended on the People to prove their innocence when the State presumes them guilty. That is how all the Communist Dictatorships treat their subjects. Tuesdays results from the CNN/ORC polls show most Americans oppose Obama and the gun grabbers on stricter gun laws and disapprove of Obama's handling of the gun control issue. Remember back in Feb 2015 when Obama tried to get the BATFE to ban 5.56 - M 855 ammo? Thank God this man will be gone in just over a year from now. Lets pray that he will be stopped from doing even more damage to us until then.
In my considered opinion, it's time for the Citizens of this Country to Unite and take back what has been usurped from us by Repealing the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments and flip the power flow back to what the Founders intended it to be. Lets face it squarely, these three Amendments have been the impetus that has placed us at this point with our Government dictating to us instead of being responsible to us.
Some may argue that the 14th should stay because it guarantees citizenship and voting rights. The 15th Guarantees voting rights, and the 1866 Civil Rights act defines and protects citizenship. While the 14th has been used to further many arguments like the Anchor Baby ruling, for which it was not intended, I believe it needs to be Repealed and a better defined Amendment put in it's place if it is deemed necessary by the American Public..
I cite; Senator Jacob Howard, a contemporary of the time period when the 14th was ratified, who spelled out the beliefs of Congress at that time, and what they intended the 14th to cover.
He stated; "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was further reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan from the same time period who stated;"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
Look at it like this; The phrase in the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Source for the preceding statements; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
One of the most pressing reasons why we need to Repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments ASAP.
For the first time on Jan.1,2016, Guns May Be Seized By Authorities W/Out Notice. Happy New "Enslavement" Year Everyone unless we stop this Constitution shredding overreach.
Source; http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/29/california-law-allowing-seizur...
As with all our Nanny Governments past ploys, California is again being used as a test bed for more and harsher restrictions. Remember where the Gasoline changes started? Remember where the Air Pollution Standards started? Remember where the Environmental Laws got Started? Remember where just about every Progressive restriction got started?
Well, it's happening again, and this time it's going to affect our Second Amendment to the point that it may as well not even be there. Starting Jan.1, 2016 a California "Gun Safety Law" will go into effect that gives Judges the right to arbitrarily confiscate a persons guns if the Judge decides there's a "Potential For Violence" That's all it takes, No 'Guidelines' nor 'Burden of Proof' required or mentioned.
Excerpt from source; ( http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abigail-wilkinson/ca-bill-would-all... )
A.B. 1014, which was introduced last year by Assembly members Das Williams (D-Carpinteria) and Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), allows a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order and a firearm seizure warrant based on the “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons“ or the “reckless use, display, or brandishing” of firearms even if no crime has been committed.
The bill “would authorize any member of the general public” – including “a disgruntled neighbor, a former employee, an ex-girlfriend, or any other scorned or vindictive individual” - to file a ‘gun violence restraining order’ against “someone they ‘think’ shouldn’t have a firearm,”the NRA said in a letter to committee members.
In addition to evidence of threats or acts of violence, the bill would also allow a judge to consider a gun owner’s past non-violent convictions when issuing a secret seizure warrant, the NRA pointed out.
In the case of A.B. 1014, however, “law enforcement officers will be entering the homes of law-abiding individuals with guns drawn and orders to seize all firearms in sight,” .
“The idea that police officers will be legally obligated to treat citizens who in many cases aren’t even accused of a crime as dangerous, armed individuals is a new and disturbing innovation in the law,”
Bear in mind that California has some of the most draconian gun laws on the books in America, and then extrapolate out to what Obama has flatly stated he will be doing with executive actions. What better way around Congress and more so the will of the majority of the people?
This may be the future of American Citizens when the Progressive Oligarchy becomes the rule of the land.“The idea that police officers will be legally obligated to treat citizens who in many cases aren’t even accused of a crime as dangerous, armed individuals is a new and disturbing innovation in the law,” That is the most chilling Statist/Progressive pronouncement and agenda ever seen in America. This is the beginning of our return to enslavement by a "Ruling Class" of Pseudo Monarchy.
What ever happened to the american Legal Standard that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? The Onus of Proof has descended on the People to prove their innocence when the State presumes them guilty. That is how all the Communist Dictatorships treat their subjects. Tuesdays results from the CNN/ORC polls show most Americans oppose Obama and the gun grabbers on stricter gun laws and disapprove of Obama's handling of the gun control issue. Remember back in Feb 2015 when Obama tried to get the BATFE to ban 5.56 - M 855 ammo? Thank God this man will be gone in just over a year from now. Lets pray that he will be stopped from doing even more damage to us until then.
In my considered opinion, it's time for the Citizens of this Country to Unite and take back what has been usurped from us by Repealing the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments and flip the power flow back to what the Founders intended it to be. Lets face it squarely, these three Amendments have been the impetus that has placed us at this point with our Government dictating to us instead of being responsible to us.
Some may argue that the 14th should stay because it guarantees citizenship and voting rights. The 15th Guarantees voting rights, and the 1866 Civil Rights act defines and protects citizenship. While the 14th has been used to further many arguments like the Anchor Baby ruling, for which it was not intended, I believe it needs to be Repealed and a better defined Amendment put in it's place if it is deemed necessary by the American Public..
I cite; Senator Jacob Howard, a contemporary of the time period when the 14th was ratified, who spelled out the beliefs of Congress at that time, and what they intended the 14th to cover.
He stated; "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was further reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan from the same time period who stated;"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
Look at it like this; The phrase in the 14th "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Source for the preceding statements; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
"The American Blood Spilled in San Bernardino is on Obama's Hands"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, December 13, 2015 - All Rights Reserved
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners (www.narlo.org)
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues for over 10 years
© Copyright Sunday, December 13, 2015 - All Rights Reserved
"If you fail to subdue or kill the bully, the bully owns you, either by fear, or by force." Ron Ewart
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
We do not know if Obama is a Muslim in his heart and mind, but without a doubt Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. He has proven it time and time again starting with his Cairo speech in June 2009, early on in his presidency. Perhaps this is a projection of his early childhood when raised in Indonesia, a Muslim country. Or perhaps it was because his Kenyan father was a Muslim. Maybe he was converted to Islam during his clandestine trip to Pakistan in 1981. Or, perhaps it goes deeper than that. Could it be that Obama is a Muslim version of the Manchurian candidate? You decide!
But Obama is more than just a Muslim sympathizer. He has aided and abetted radical Islam causes by failing to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic and by his in-action in the face of a direct threat against American sovereignty and security.
By not seeing the potential growth of an Al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq, (ISIS) Obama negligently pulled our troops out of Iraq against the advice of his generals. Not only did this criminal action by Obama allow ISIS to metastasize, it allowed Iran, a sponsor of international terrorism, to move in and influence the government of Iraq, thus rendering Iraq just another Iranian puppet.
As a result, Iran’s puppet, Iraq, (both Muslim Shia) refused to let the Sunnis and Kurds in Northern Iraq participate in the Iraq government, thereby fueling disaffection, insurrection and the growth of ISIS. It also re-ignited the 1,500-year-old civil war between Shia and Sunnis over the successor to the prophet Muhammad. Because of the Sunni’s sympathy with ISIS and not the government of Iraq, when the bully ISIS came to conquer, the Sunni military that American soldiers trained, turned over their weapons to ISIS that American taxpayers funded and then ran for the shadows. Suddenly, virtually overnight, ISIS had a powerful military, armed with American hardware, funded by Iraqi oil and the spoils of war.
But Obama’s actions and in-actions go even deeper than criminal negligence, to virtually aiding and abetting the enemy. That, by any definition, is treason. Iraq was and still is a strategic nation, in the middle of Muslim tribal chaos and Islamic civil war. American military presence was crucial to the stability of the entire, unstable Middle East region.
American taxpayers had already funded the war in Iraq to the tune of over $2,000,000,000,000 (that’s Trillion) and over 4,000 of its sons and daughters paid the ultimate price, with thousands more severely wounded or permanently disabled.
America’s continued military presence in Iraq would have been a significant deterrent against the rise of radical Islam (ISIS), Syria and Iran adventurism and a Sunni-Shia civil war. We had military and air bases built all over Iraq, at taxpayer expense. Those same taxpayers further funded a $1,000,000,000 (that’s Billion)American Embassy in Baghdad. (God knows why the State Department needed a $1 Billion embassy in Baghdad. Perhaps it was more than an embassy. Perhaps the embassy was and still is a front for the CIA.)
When ISIS kept growing, Obama played it down. When ISIS took town after town in Syria and Iraq, Obama did nothing. After being pressured to DO SOMETHING, he commenced a limited, hands-tied-behind-their-backs, military pinprick. ISIS kept growing. Obama limited American air strikes so as to prevent civilian casualties, or inflict environmental damage. Many warplanes returned to base with bomb loads still attached to the aircraft. The military begrudgingly carried out Obama’s insane orders to fight a war with no purpose, no goal and no end game. It was Obama’s war for show and propaganda with no intention of winning anything. Sacrificing military lives and hardware for show and propaganda, is even more treasonous.
ISIS is still growing and implanting itself in other countries and aligning itself with other radical Islamic groups. Because they have been so successful, they attract radical Muslim youths from all over the world to join them, including American Muslim immigrants that were imported to America from other Muslim countries. ISIS is, without a doubt, an existential threat to the United States that Obama refuses to acknowledge, much less confront that threat decisively.
With each terror attack success, more radicals flock to the cry of Allahu Akbar (Allah is great), fueled by a radical interpretation of the Qur’an. (It still remains a question whether radical Islamists are really radical when they are just following the ramblings of the alleged prophet Muhammad, as he laid out his personal interpretations of Allah‘s mandates in the Qur’an.)
For failing to keep troops in Iraq, the blood spilled at each ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorist attack is on Obama’s hands. He alone had the power to prevent it. Radical Islamic groups are now competing with each other to see who can inflict the most civilian casualties. Each of these growing terrorist attacks where blood is spilled is on Obama’s hands.
In the recent Paris terrorist attack, 130 died needlessly and over 350 were wounded. Their blood is on Obama’s hands.
In Egypt a Russian passenger jet was blown out of the sky over the desolate Sinai Peninsula by an ISIS bomb. Russian blood is on Obama’s hands.
For failing to stop the Syrian butcher, Basar Al Assad, the blood of 250,000 Syrians is on Obama’s hands. That civil war, that Obama could have stopped, is creating floods of refugees pouring into Europe and trying to get into America. Many of those refugees are terrorists. Russia has now joined Assad with Russian military assets, making the removal of Assad by America an invitation to a third world war between the two super powers.
Now, spilled blood from Islamic terrorism has landed on American shores in what is surely the first of more to come terrorist attacks by radical or radicalized Muslims. If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind, given the preliminary evidence that the San Bernardino attack was a radical Islamic terrorist attack, they are delusional. Even before the time this article is published, all doubt will have been removed.
Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist attacker and his Muslim wife, were prepared to perpetrate massive, unprecedented carnage somewhere in America. Perhaps his anger over an employment injustice or dispute, enraged him to the point he attacked his co-workers instead for personal reasons, prior to the planned terrorist event. Or maybe the attack on the service center was the plan all along. Nevertheless, there is no doubt he was planning a massive terrorist attack, given the arsenal he had assembled. The question is, who are his co-conspirators. He had to have had help.
But it makes no difference whether the San Bernardino terrorist attack was inspired by ISIS, Al Qaeda, or just a self-radicalized Islamic nut case. The growth of radical Islam has been and is on Obama’s watch. The American blood spilled in San Bernardino is on Obama’s hands.
It must be clear to everyone with any intellect at all, that terrorism will not be stopped until the terrorists are crushed where they live. Once crushed the draw to terrorism for young Jihadists will cease. Obama’s job was to crush the terrorists and he has failed miserably to do the job, leaving all Americans in grave peril in their own country.
Obama’s Sunday night speech did nothing to allay the fears of those Americans who will now think twice about going to the mall, or the theater, or a sports event for fear of another terrorist attack. He offered nothing new in the fight on terror in that speech. His emphasis on more gun control and trying to make us feel guilty about a possible Muslim backlash were hollow and meaningless. More gun control would not have stopped the San Bernardino attack and there is no noticeable backlash against Muslims in America, even though out of the five major religions in the world, only one of those religions, Islam, is mandating that everyone else convert or die.
We say, "Muslims, heal thine self or the wrath of righteous indignation will descend upon you with full force and fury."
We predict that another San Bernardino style terrorist attack in America, will incite the people to call for all Islamic terrorists to be crushed, anywhere on the planet, with America’s full military might and they won’t care about civilian casualties or environmental damage. Trump is already making that call and that is why he is still popular and rising in popularity.
Obama’s foreign policy actions or in-actions don’t stop at criminal negligence, or even treason. His socialist, radical environmental policies, Muslim loving and unconstitutional Executive Orders just add to the list of what may be the most irreparable damage that any president has done to American freedom and sovereignty. His obsession with "climate change", gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens and importing Syrian refugees into America while people are dying all over the planet from Islamic terrorist attacks, borders on neurotic paranoia, just plain stupidity, or pure evil. Any sane person knows gun controls won’t stop terrorists or lone, crazed gunmen in America, or anywhere else.
Obama’s constant deflection to other issues, or blaming others for his failures, when presented with major crises, is classic narcissism. He is either clueless, or diabolically evil.
Why Obama has not been impeached or indicted for treason by now will ring in the history books for centuries. How a man like Obama, with such a tortured past, ever became president of the Unites States of America, falls squarely on an electorate that has lost all allegiance to the values and foundation of a free society conceived in liberty and dedicated to the preservation of the individual, unalienable rights of its citizens. Obama was before his election and still is as President and will continue to be at the end of his term, anti-America and pro Muslim.
It will take decades to repair what this monster and the Democrats, that aided and abetted him, have unleashed on America and its people. It may even be irreparable. Meanwhile, because of his foreign policy failures, the streets of America could run red with blood as radical Islam infiltrates the fabric of America and becomes a cancer that can’t be cured. That blood will be on Obama’s hands and those people that supported him and those people that elected him.
Yes, Obama is the cause, but millions of Americans who voted for this Islamic Trojan Horse are the cause of the cause and they too share the responsibility and the blame for all that blood that will be spilled in American cities, in the name of radical Islam. That blood will stain Obama’s hands and forever render him the most dangerous and inept president that clueless liberal Americans ever elected to this high office. Will that same clueless liberal group of Americans be stupid enough to elect a hopelessly corrupt, female carbon copy of Obama? If they do …… ?
We’d like to know what is on your mind regarding Obama and Islam:
"Should Obama be impeached or indicted for treason?"
"Is Obama a narcissist that should have never been elected president?"
"Has Obama been good for America?"
"Is Islam a peaceful religion?"
Hit SEND after clicking one of the links. Feel free to leave a constructive comment. Don’t be reluctant to respond to more than one question, if you are of a mind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
Oregon Rancher Fears for His Life after Feds Threaten Him Through His AttorneyPosted on November 27, 2015 by Tim Brown
Source; http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/11/27/oregon-rancher-fears-for-his-life-after-feds-threaten-him-through-his-attorney/
Source; http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/11/27/oregon-rancher-fears-for-his-life-after-feds-threaten-him-through-his-attorney/
Earlier this week, I reported on the Hammond family, ranchers from Oregon who are being set up for what can only be deemed as Double Jeopardy as part of a tyrannical move by the federal government for something that occurred over a decade ago, which they normally do as ranchers. Now, the patriarch of the family, Dwight Hammond is in fear for his life and the lives of his family.
In an email sent out by Ammon Bundy from the Bundy Ranch, he said that he received a phone call on Friday, November 21 from Mr. Hammond, who communicated that he was, “very afraid for his life and for mine as well”
Federal agents had contacted his attorney and according to the Bundy email, “They told Dwight’s attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they ‘would detain the Hammond’s early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family.'”
Hammond also believes “they would bring misery to the whole family.”
Steven Hammond’s attorney also confirmed the fact that federal agents had contacted him and hinted that there might be a raid on the Hammond’s home if they did not break off communication with Ammon Bundy. Why? Is there some sort of threat that the American people are unaware of? Are they planning to burn more ranch land that is beneficial to the land just like the feds do? If there is something so dangerous about this family and their communication with the Bundy’s, why are the feds not making their move now?
These are nothing but Gestapo-style tactics to shut the Hammonds and the Bundys up.
“On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond’s continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond’s home and detain them early for federal prison,” Ammon Bundy wrote. “I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen. I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights.”
Dwight, Steven and Susie Hammond have been thankful for Bundy getting the word out to Americans of how their family has been railroaded by the federal government. On top of that Mrs. Hammond expressed a real fear that if they continued communication with Bundy that they might get a bullet in their heads… and maybe even in Bundy’s.
None of this is far-fetched.
America watched the siege of the Bundy Ranch, the slaughter of cattle, the intimidation of hundreds of armed federal agents, the tasing of protesters who were corralled into an unconstitutional “First Amendment Area,” and even the use of snipers, as well as the implementation of a no-fly zone over the ranch. None of this was done by the Bundys. It was all the federal government.
However, as alternative media brought the story more to light, the mainstream media was forced to cover it, even to the point where we saw elected officials referring to American citizens as domestic terrorists, when it was federal agents armed to the teeth and surrounding those citizens who were the oppressors!
Following the victory at the Bundy Ranch, Ammon Bundy exhorted Americans, “Men must decide if their Rights and Freedoms are God-granted or are assigned by a Federal Government.”
American militia men responded to the Bundy Ranch siege, and they are currently on standby to do the same for the Hammonds.
For the reasons why the Hammonds are being treated the way they are, please visit the Bundy’s website for a breakdown of facts and events by clicking here.
Be sure to contact the following individuals and respectfully encourage them to do the right thing and stand up for the Hammonds and against the tyranny of the federal government.
Sheriff David M. Ward
485 N Court Ave #6
Burns, Oregon 97720
541-573-6156
Dave.ward@co.harney.us
Frank Papagni, ESQ. US Attorney (Prosecutor)
405 East Eighth Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-465-6771
Frank.pagani@usdoj.gov
Lawrence Matasar, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
521 SW Morrison St, Ste 1025
Portland, OR 97205
503-222-9830
larry@pdxlaw.com
Marc Blackman, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
1001 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 1400
Portland, OR 97204
503-228-0487
marc@ransomblackman.com
Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Mgr, BLM
BLM, Burns District Office
28910 Hwy 20
Hines, OR 97738
541-573-4400
Chad Karges, Refuge Mgr for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (Husband of Rhonda)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept of Interior
36391 Sodhouse Ln
Princeton, OR 97721
541-493-2612
Governor Kate Brown
State Capital Bldg
900 Court St NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301
503-378-4582
Billy J. Williams, U.S. District Attorney (Eugene office)
405 E 8th Ave. Suite 2400
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-6771
Neil Evans
Portland, OR
503-727-1053
Gerri Badden U.S Attorney’s Office – District of Oregon PIO
503-727-1033
503-706-3910
Gerri.badden@usdoj.gov
Judge Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the District of Oregon
541-431-4100
info@ord.uscourts.gov
Chuck Cushman Public Advocate, American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-687-3087
Former Judge Michael Hogan
PO Box 1375
Eugene, OR 97440
541-465-6773
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.
In an email sent out by Ammon Bundy from the Bundy Ranch, he said that he received a phone call on Friday, November 21 from Mr. Hammond, who communicated that he was, “very afraid for his life and for mine as well”
Federal agents had contacted his attorney and according to the Bundy email, “They told Dwight’s attorney that if Dwight and Susie did not end all communication with Ammon Bundy, that they ‘would detain the Hammond’s early for federal prison and that they would transfer pain to the Hammond family.'”
Hammond also believes “they would bring misery to the whole family.”
Steven Hammond’s attorney also confirmed the fact that federal agents had contacted him and hinted that there might be a raid on the Hammond’s home if they did not break off communication with Ammon Bundy. Why? Is there some sort of threat that the American people are unaware of? Are they planning to burn more ranch land that is beneficial to the land just like the feds do? If there is something so dangerous about this family and their communication with the Bundy’s, why are the feds not making their move now?
These are nothing but Gestapo-style tactics to shut the Hammonds and the Bundys up.
“On Thursday November 19th, Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, informed me that federal agents indicated to him that if the Hammond’s continued to speaking out, that they may raid the Hammond’s home and detain them early for federal prison,” Ammon Bundy wrote. “I informed the Sheriff that it was his duty to make sure that did not happen. I do not have to explain how this is a violation of individual rights.”
Dwight, Steven and Susie Hammond have been thankful for Bundy getting the word out to Americans of how their family has been railroaded by the federal government. On top of that Mrs. Hammond expressed a real fear that if they continued communication with Bundy that they might get a bullet in their heads… and maybe even in Bundy’s.
None of this is far-fetched.
America watched the siege of the Bundy Ranch, the slaughter of cattle, the intimidation of hundreds of armed federal agents, the tasing of protesters who were corralled into an unconstitutional “First Amendment Area,” and even the use of snipers, as well as the implementation of a no-fly zone over the ranch. None of this was done by the Bundys. It was all the federal government.
However, as alternative media brought the story more to light, the mainstream media was forced to cover it, even to the point where we saw elected officials referring to American citizens as domestic terrorists, when it was federal agents armed to the teeth and surrounding those citizens who were the oppressors!
Following the victory at the Bundy Ranch, Ammon Bundy exhorted Americans, “Men must decide if their Rights and Freedoms are God-granted or are assigned by a Federal Government.”
American militia men responded to the Bundy Ranch siege, and they are currently on standby to do the same for the Hammonds.
For the reasons why the Hammonds are being treated the way they are, please visit the Bundy’s website for a breakdown of facts and events by clicking here.
Be sure to contact the following individuals and respectfully encourage them to do the right thing and stand up for the Hammonds and against the tyranny of the federal government.
Sheriff David M. Ward
485 N Court Ave #6
Burns, Oregon 97720
541-573-6156
Dave.ward@co.harney.us
Frank Papagni, ESQ. US Attorney (Prosecutor)
405 East Eighth Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-465-6771
Frank.pagani@usdoj.gov
Lawrence Matasar, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
521 SW Morrison St, Ste 1025
Portland, OR 97205
503-222-9830
larry@pdxlaw.com
Marc Blackman, ESQ. (Defending attorney)
1001 SW Fifth Ave, Ste 1400
Portland, OR 97204
503-228-0487
marc@ransomblackman.com
Rhonda Karges, Resource Field Mgr, BLM
BLM, Burns District Office
28910 Hwy 20
Hines, OR 97738
541-573-4400
Chad Karges, Refuge Mgr for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (Husband of Rhonda)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept of Interior
36391 Sodhouse Ln
Princeton, OR 97721
541-493-2612
Governor Kate Brown
State Capital Bldg
900 Court St NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301
503-378-4582
Billy J. Williams, U.S. District Attorney (Eugene office)
405 E 8th Ave. Suite 2400
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541)465-6771
Neil Evans
Portland, OR
503-727-1053
Gerri Badden U.S Attorney’s Office – District of Oregon PIO
503-727-1033
503-706-3910
Gerri.badden@usdoj.gov
Judge Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the District of Oregon
541-431-4100
info@ord.uscourts.gov
Chuck Cushman Public Advocate, American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-687-3087
Former Judge Michael Hogan
PO Box 1375
Eugene, OR 97440
541-465-6773
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.
Who Pays the Price for the First Amendment?
The Constitution protects the hateful speech, but the burdens of such speech are unequally distributed.
The late Irving Feiner would have made a hell of a lawyer. After he spoke to my First Amendment class twenty years ago, a few students suggested he’d also have been a better professor than I. Professor Ralph Stein of Pace Law School told a newspaper that, after Feiner lectured to his class, “he had trouble leaving the class because the students kept talking to him. They would ask him to autograph their casebooks.”
But Feiner is the name of a landmark case rather than of a distinguished civil-liberties lawyer. That’s a shame—one that can be laid at the feet of the United States Supreme Court, which in 1951 affirmed Feiner’s state-court conviction for disorderly conduct. Feiner was expelled from Syracuse University, and his multiple admissions to law school were rescinded. He spent the rest of his life as a dealer in tropical fish—and as a civil-rights advocate and political activist (he helped form the Working Families Party, among other things). He died in 2009 in Valhalla, New York.
Feiner’s life changed on March 8, 1949, when he mounted a wooden box at a busy Syracuse street corner to invite passersby to a meeting in support of theTrenton Six—six African American defendants who had been convicted in 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder of a shopkeeper. (Eventually, four of the six went free after appeal; two were convicted.) The rally had been scheduled for a public-school auditorium that night; at the last minute, the mayor had canceled the event, requiring a quick change of venue to a nearby hotel. Feiner was trying to get the word out. Accounts differ about what he said: The police later claimed he urged African American listeners to “rise in arms,” while Feiner recalled saying that blacks and whites should protest “arm in arm.”
But what’s clear is that some white onlookers took offense, and one of them told a police officer, “If you don’t get that son of a bitch off, I will go over and get him off there myself.” The police told Feiner to shut up and come down; when he refused, they arrested him.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice Fred Vinson accepted the lower court’s version of events without question. “[W]hen as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot,” he wrote, the police had every right to “prevent a breach of the peace.” Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas both dissented, sharply. The police had made no attempt to protect Feiner, they noted, and the evidence did not support a charge of “incitement to riot.” But Feiner’s conviction, his expulsion, and the rescission of his law-school admissions stood.
Feiner v. New York, never overruled, shambles around the legal landscape like a First Amendment zombie. When Southern sheriffs in the 1960s used the “danger” of mob action to break up civil-rights demonstrations, the Court refused to accept their claims. Instead, the Court fashioned an important principle—courts hearing a First Amendment claim may not just accept the conclusions of courts below; they must re-examine the factual record to see whether there really was a threat of disorder.
The en banc majority of the Sixth Circuit did exactly that last week in a case called Bible Believers v. Wayne Co. Overruling both a district judge and a three-judge appeals panel, the majority held that the Wayne County sheriff’s deputies could have—and thus should have—protected the First Amendment rights of fundamentalist Christian demonstrators who invaded the 2012 Arab International Festival in Dearborn. The demonstrators held signs deriding Muhammad (“child molesting pervert”) and Islam (“a religion of blood and murder”). They also carried the severed head of a pig on a stick, supposedly as protection from Muslims, to whom pork, and pigs, are unclean.
Angry teenagers began pelting them with plastic bottles, garbage, rocks, and a milk crate. The sheriff’s deputies detained a few of the rock-throwers; but soon they told the Believers to leave or face citation for disorderly conduct. Examining the record independently, the en banc majority concluded that the sheriff’s office had enough officers on hand to protect the Bible Believers, and should have done so:
The Bible Believers attended the Festival to exercise their First Amendment rights and spread their religious message. The way they conveyed their message may have been vile and offensive to most every person who believes in the right of their fellow citizens to practice the faith of his or her choosing; nonetheless, they had every right to espouse their views ... When the message was ill-received, the police did next to nothing to protect the Bible Believers or to contain the lawlessness of the hecklers in the crowd. Instead, [they] accused the Bible Believers of being disorderly and removed them from the Festival. On this record, there can be no reasonable dispute that the [sheriff’s office] effectuated a heckler’s veto, thereby violating the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights.
Bible Believers displays vividly the underlying strength of the American commitment to free speech—and the troubling shadow that commitment inevitably casts.
Only a few things that public speakers say can be punished. “Islam is bad” isn’t one of them, even when said to a large, angry crowd of Muslims. A speaker who said, “Kill some Muslims now!” could be punished for incitement. A speaker who said to a specific person, “You are a disgusting infidel and your religion stinks and you are going to hell” might be punished for “fighting words.” A speaker who brandishes a pig’s head—or any other object—to convey a physical threat can be punished as well.
Otherwise, police can’t arrest a speaker for saying something awful.
The civil-rights era cases show why this is good. All too often, the police want to silence this world’s Irv Feiners because they don’t like what they have to say, and the “angry crowd” is a handy excuse.
We may like to imagine that American society is at heart a kind of sunny Norman Rockwell small town; but it is not and never has been.But we pay a price for this freedom, and not everyone pays the price equally. The First Amendment imposes on us all the duty to maintain the peace even when our deepest beliefs are denounced. But that duty is doubly onerous for minorities, because they must endure such abuse more often and longer.
In a country that is 70 percent Christian, Muslims account for less than one percent of the population. Since 9/11, powerful religious and political figures have been openly campaigning to strip this tiny population of the protections of the Constitution.
In that context, the Bible Believers’ speech, though protected, was far from harmless. Their demonstrations ruined the nation’s largest public Arab American event—after the arrests in 2012, the Arab American Chamber of Commerce, sponsor of the festival for nearly 20 years, cancelled it.
The more I study the First Amendment, the more I think our system protects free speech not because it is harmless but precisely because it often does terrible harm. We may like to imagine that American society is at heart a kind of sunny Norman Rockwell small town; but it is not and never has been. Like all other societies, it embodies at its core a constant bitter struggle for cultural, religious, and political dominance. The Constitution makes a judgment that speech is the least bad way for that deadly competition to take place—not car bombs and bullets, but vicious images and words.
I wish I could talk to Irv Feiner about Bible Believers. He was a better lawyer than many who took the bar, and a better American than those who tried to ruin his life. His imagination, I think, would have room for concern about both the Muslim people of Dearborn and the aggressive bigots who destroyed their peaceful fair.
The Constitution protects the hateful speech, but the burdens of such speech are unequally distributed.
The late Irving Feiner would have made a hell of a lawyer. After he spoke to my First Amendment class twenty years ago, a few students suggested he’d also have been a better professor than I. Professor Ralph Stein of Pace Law School told a newspaper that, after Feiner lectured to his class, “he had trouble leaving the class because the students kept talking to him. They would ask him to autograph their casebooks.”
But Feiner is the name of a landmark case rather than of a distinguished civil-liberties lawyer. That’s a shame—one that can be laid at the feet of the United States Supreme Court, which in 1951 affirmed Feiner’s state-court conviction for disorderly conduct. Feiner was expelled from Syracuse University, and his multiple admissions to law school were rescinded. He spent the rest of his life as a dealer in tropical fish—and as a civil-rights advocate and political activist (he helped form the Working Families Party, among other things). He died in 2009 in Valhalla, New York.
Feiner’s life changed on March 8, 1949, when he mounted a wooden box at a busy Syracuse street corner to invite passersby to a meeting in support of theTrenton Six—six African American defendants who had been convicted in 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder of a shopkeeper. (Eventually, four of the six went free after appeal; two were convicted.) The rally had been scheduled for a public-school auditorium that night; at the last minute, the mayor had canceled the event, requiring a quick change of venue to a nearby hotel. Feiner was trying to get the word out. Accounts differ about what he said: The police later claimed he urged African American listeners to “rise in arms,” while Feiner recalled saying that blacks and whites should protest “arm in arm.”
But what’s clear is that some white onlookers took offense, and one of them told a police officer, “If you don’t get that son of a bitch off, I will go over and get him off there myself.” The police told Feiner to shut up and come down; when he refused, they arrested him.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice Fred Vinson accepted the lower court’s version of events without question. “[W]hen as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot,” he wrote, the police had every right to “prevent a breach of the peace.” Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas both dissented, sharply. The police had made no attempt to protect Feiner, they noted, and the evidence did not support a charge of “incitement to riot.” But Feiner’s conviction, his expulsion, and the rescission of his law-school admissions stood.
Feiner v. New York, never overruled, shambles around the legal landscape like a First Amendment zombie. When Southern sheriffs in the 1960s used the “danger” of mob action to break up civil-rights demonstrations, the Court refused to accept their claims. Instead, the Court fashioned an important principle—courts hearing a First Amendment claim may not just accept the conclusions of courts below; they must re-examine the factual record to see whether there really was a threat of disorder.
The en banc majority of the Sixth Circuit did exactly that last week in a case called Bible Believers v. Wayne Co. Overruling both a district judge and a three-judge appeals panel, the majority held that the Wayne County sheriff’s deputies could have—and thus should have—protected the First Amendment rights of fundamentalist Christian demonstrators who invaded the 2012 Arab International Festival in Dearborn. The demonstrators held signs deriding Muhammad (“child molesting pervert”) and Islam (“a religion of blood and murder”). They also carried the severed head of a pig on a stick, supposedly as protection from Muslims, to whom pork, and pigs, are unclean.
Angry teenagers began pelting them with plastic bottles, garbage, rocks, and a milk crate. The sheriff’s deputies detained a few of the rock-throwers; but soon they told the Believers to leave or face citation for disorderly conduct. Examining the record independently, the en banc majority concluded that the sheriff’s office had enough officers on hand to protect the Bible Believers, and should have done so:
The Bible Believers attended the Festival to exercise their First Amendment rights and spread their religious message. The way they conveyed their message may have been vile and offensive to most every person who believes in the right of their fellow citizens to practice the faith of his or her choosing; nonetheless, they had every right to espouse their views ... When the message was ill-received, the police did next to nothing to protect the Bible Believers or to contain the lawlessness of the hecklers in the crowd. Instead, [they] accused the Bible Believers of being disorderly and removed them from the Festival. On this record, there can be no reasonable dispute that the [sheriff’s office] effectuated a heckler’s veto, thereby violating the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights.
Bible Believers displays vividly the underlying strength of the American commitment to free speech—and the troubling shadow that commitment inevitably casts.
Only a few things that public speakers say can be punished. “Islam is bad” isn’t one of them, even when said to a large, angry crowd of Muslims. A speaker who said, “Kill some Muslims now!” could be punished for incitement. A speaker who said to a specific person, “You are a disgusting infidel and your religion stinks and you are going to hell” might be punished for “fighting words.” A speaker who brandishes a pig’s head—or any other object—to convey a physical threat can be punished as well.
Otherwise, police can’t arrest a speaker for saying something awful.
The civil-rights era cases show why this is good. All too often, the police want to silence this world’s Irv Feiners because they don’t like what they have to say, and the “angry crowd” is a handy excuse.
We may like to imagine that American society is at heart a kind of sunny Norman Rockwell small town; but it is not and never has been.But we pay a price for this freedom, and not everyone pays the price equally. The First Amendment imposes on us all the duty to maintain the peace even when our deepest beliefs are denounced. But that duty is doubly onerous for minorities, because they must endure such abuse more often and longer.
In a country that is 70 percent Christian, Muslims account for less than one percent of the population. Since 9/11, powerful religious and political figures have been openly campaigning to strip this tiny population of the protections of the Constitution.
In that context, the Bible Believers’ speech, though protected, was far from harmless. Their demonstrations ruined the nation’s largest public Arab American event—after the arrests in 2012, the Arab American Chamber of Commerce, sponsor of the festival for nearly 20 years, cancelled it.
The more I study the First Amendment, the more I think our system protects free speech not because it is harmless but precisely because it often does terrible harm. We may like to imagine that American society is at heart a kind of sunny Norman Rockwell small town; but it is not and never has been. Like all other societies, it embodies at its core a constant bitter struggle for cultural, religious, and political dominance. The Constitution makes a judgment that speech is the least bad way for that deadly competition to take place—not car bombs and bullets, but vicious images and words.
I wish I could talk to Irv Feiner about Bible Believers. He was a better lawyer than many who took the bar, and a better American than those who tried to ruin his life. His imagination, I think, would have room for concern about both the Muslim people of Dearborn and the aggressive bigots who destroyed their peaceful fair.
We are at a crossroads here in America
Overview: The Point of Choice
Our opposition is using every bit of our natural compassion and belief, our sensitive Christian tenets of faith that call us to volunteer and help the downtrodden, and by political measures take that very noble belief system, regulate and mandate our compassion into something that only serves to empower their own political positions. The mandates do make them more powerful, but they do not make them more righteous, and these mandates do not make us less righteous in our honest intent, but they do make us less powerful as a people.
Lets go back to the beginnings of the Communist party before Lenin, before Trotsky, actually to the origins before Marx and Engels codified it into what it was to become. The very beginnings of communism were based on Jewish tradition. A religion and a life style. Traditions that willingly embraced in the hearts of the faithful that seek out means to help the community unselfishly as a whole, through the personal responsibility that every member embraced and dedicated to the well being of every other member, that being the life style. Granted that is a major over simplification, but it gives us the perspective of a starting point. It also illustrates the importance of keeping our religions and our politics separate and apart. The authorities that source to both are separate and apart. One speaks to the earthy workings of man, the other to the spiritual and a Higher Authority and that higher authorities natural laws.
The traditions and high ideals that were basically forwarded at the beginning of socialism/communism, were noble and therefore invited no room for criticism from a noble people claiming to want to live noble lives. They preyed upon our natural good natures. Voluntarily and with willing heart the noble tenants that were already embraced lured people into the political psychology. The Socialist dogma that grew at a slow pace, sourced from the writings of the Talmudic, infiltrated and infected just about every human endeavor. Trotsky in 1927 even coined a word that was intended to discredit and ostracize and brow beat those who questioned the Socialist agenda,that term was 'Racist'
From a worthy beginning, slowly the political polluted the faith based movement into a non-volunteer but a mandated collective system. The Jewish traditions became the door through which the willing walked into the politic of socialism/to a deeper degree communism where benevolent choice was set aside, and conformity was mandated. Volunteering to shelter and love your fellow man was not achieved through a love and following the admonitions of the Almighty, but by and only by, the authority of the State.....eventually the belief in the Almighty was abandoned. Strong socialist states today have no official affection for a Higher Power. Only pockets of 'the religious' can be found in these societies, there exists much atheism in socialist countries today.
Then came The American Revolution
The American Revolution, gave us the first dynamic introduction, on a nation sized scale of the experiment of self rule, shook the foundations of what had through the ages of time, in every historical society and nations that had risen and fell, the challenge to the "The Divine Rights of Kings". No longer could that ruling paradigm that created, manipulated, rewarded and abused the classes in the societies they ruled, claim as a leadership the divine right to rule over a common folk. No longer must a common folk be dictated to, concerning what they were going to do and how they were going to live.
I will grant to the argument, that the Iron Rule had been somewhat challenged successfully before at Runnymede when the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta. While that instrument did infringe on the totalitarian rule of Kings, it only affected the Peerage of Nobles. We have seen through the times where Liberty has flourished the continuance of the wealthy, those with and inherited position, those who have accumulated wealth to create for themselves a class of their own, some label them today as the Rich and powerful Crony Capitalists. History will always record groups that morph into the Robber barons who strive to be a ruling class, and those who seek to rule will always adapt.
But in this new America, The spark was lit....and it was a dangerous idea.
The original revolutionaries had done something that no other nation or great society had done before in the history of the world, they created a Republic that incorporated Democratic principles, and those self same principles were to be constrained by a document we know as the Constitution. The Constitution was to be our guide, our mooring, our launch to every aspect of a sovereign future.
No more in a new nation common folk fought for and won their own freedom to create and dwell within, could any right of any king claim dominion in this new land and there was to be no High,Middle, or Low justice meted out at such a hand or carried out upon a king's whim. but the seed of individual freedom, and the concept that no earthly authority granted us our positions as sovereigns over our existence was born in the lands of America and in the hearts of her citizens with the unique psychology of fundamental belief in "God given Rights". The words of the Declaration of Independence held the power to free not only ourselves but to spread such hope to the rest of the world. That basic tenet and cornerstone of our experiment in self rule enshrined in the Constitution is now under attack from within and without by self serving detractors
Today we have a declared socialist running on the Democratic ticket for the highest office in our land. He enjoys some strong popular support, he is polling in the lead in some primary states. This man leads the democratic socialist caucus in our Congress, it is said to have over 70 members. These people have been elected to their positions by us. How do socialists have such support in a free and sovereign nation that emphasizes the individual as exceptional, the State's as sovereigns in their own right, and not the collective as principle? Last week's democratic debate was a contest between who could collectively gift our society with more 'free entitlements'. Entitlements that we are to believe we are horn with has replaced the 'natural tights' we were endowed with. The State has become the benefactor, not Our Creator. I ask you, how have we arrived at this place in American political dogma today? Why have we accepted it mostly without question?
THE PATH to the CROSSROAD
There are stages on the politic scale, Ideologies of government.
According to Wiki They are:
America began as a Democratic Republic, democratic as in electing our representatives.
re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb′lĭk) n.
1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican form of government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field.
America, a truly unique creation, a democratic-representative-republic. It was an unprecedented, novel concept we began with, it was immature and grew as it would without example. A strong and healthy, righteous and willful, trembling and vulnerable, determined and courageous government/nation.
Today the opposition to embrace our founding doctrine has bluffed us into believing we are a Democracy (absent the republic part) which has evolved to a higher plain and abandoned the republic having found it to be of little consequence. All of the ideologies of government listed above have had their erosive or diminishing influence on the Democratic Republican Foundations we began with.
FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS
In the Colonial days it was an accepted practice to emulate the English pattern they were familiar with, of the rich running everything and the common people doing what they were told/expected to do. Before the Revolution, what made it different in America from European models, was the abundance of land that could be farmed for sustenance, survival, and individual profit. Opportunity to make a better life.
In Europe, parcels passed down from generation to generation in Europe gave the individuals the mindset they could do for themselves and could Control/Rule themselves on their own lands. The people living on their lands did so with their good graces, subject to their dictates, thrived or did not thrive according to the benevolence or lack thereof of the ruler over these lands.
Our strong belief in the Creator (America was founded on Christian principles) and the failed history of serving kings and landlords became the basis for our removing and rejecting the Foreign rule of Kings.
OUR NATION BEGAN ADVANCE DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
Advance American history to the time after our next major conflict, The Civil War.
The cause against Slavery was minor as catalyst that precipitated the war, and more importantly to the people of that era, was the supremacy of States Rights over Federal Rights. To that effect a Civil war had been fought, and the proponents of Federal Rights supreme over the Peoples and States Rights took root. That was the larger government role, there was a personal role taking place in society.
Human nature being what it is, those maintaining their richness after the war wanted to maintain their control over and profit from what they still considered the lower classes, and those who wanted to become rich and advantage themselves in the reconstruction chaos that followed the war all sought their opportunity. That gave rise to the Robber Barons of the 1800's
In the Mid 1800's the Robber Barons were mainly situated in the Northern States and held title through many private banks liens on Southern landowners real property and were charging what we would call usurious rates of interest. The Robber Barons reverted to what the old Liege Lords of previous centuries were prone to do, namely abusing their workers. This phenomenon was not only happening in America, but it was gaining a resurgence world wide.
That was the original impetus and lure of Socialism to the downtrodden common folk everywhere. It travelled to America with European immigrants. However, the common folk - the immigrant, did not discern that it was in fact the old order reasserting itself under the False Flag of "an experiment to liberate the workers of the world from the tyranny of the rich", when in fact it was just another way to have the people voluntarily place the twin yokes of oppression and exploitation around their necks again in a free land, while believing that they themselves could still remain free and self directed. A man/woman cannot serve two masters.
THE SLOPE...ON STEROIDS
Introduce another 'ism'.
This is what is happening today under another False Flag called Progressivism.
It is the same co-mingled ideologies, repackaged as something grand and new, sold to a more sophisticated public. Lipstick on a pig, does not change the reality of the animal. The Traditional Abusive Ruling Class is still trying to retain their control, and are gaining inroads to that old time total control because the people have been politically asleep for over 115 years.
The tenants of socialism and communism immigrated to America and have gradually and incrementally morphed to 'the progressive' theology enhanced through revisionist historical telling. Under the guise of again "Helping The Downtrodden", they are again seeking to enslave and drag us backward into the old age-old world ways. If they succeed We The People will again suffer as subjects while they maintain their strangle hold on all the political and monetary power that there is in our Nation, advanced with their own ties to the world. Much has been done in broad and in fine to advance globalization, the prize for them is enormous. They decry the 1%, pointing fingers at all but themselves. How ironic that they are the self-same, but if you are not member to their portion of extreme wealth and protected clique, you are the wealthy they scapegoat to advance class envy. They wish us to completely miss the FACT that they are the rich they are so easily and publicly condemning.
As I started this Treatise out as Americans being at a cross roads, I meant that we are actually at the tipping point where we will either go toward and restore our original Revolutionary Freedoms, understand, embrace and restore our original Constitution, reject the old world Politics of Progressivism for ourselves and most importantly our children? Or, will we silently and quietly slip back into the condition of servitude, slide into the grand abyss of history as a beautiful-magnificent-failed experiment, where the common man could not rise and remain standing.
Has the reign of Kings, many kings, in many lands with self appointed - ignorantly anointed Rulers returned/began once again? I pray not.
THE CROSSROADS
It's up to us individually and in concert with each other.
So many of us do the arduous work of seeking to speak to and expose the lies and subterfuges of the progressives. We work to keep pushing back the darkness. We know that we live in a critical time requiring critical action, and how easily our country can slip back into servitude. Truly examine your lives, how much freedom to you realize? How much servitude do you suffer? Honestly seek and then find the truth for yourself, embrace it and share it with your children. Our educational systems from top to bottom revise, sanitize, and re-invent the truth, revise our true history to suit their dogma, and indoctrinate the same to our young and fertile minds.
We must succeed in maintaining this knowledge, we must succeed in sharing it to offer honest counter to the progressive doctrines that blind and twist our children toward their mold and psychology. What they teach is not new, it is old, it wants to take us backward to an Old Order of Servitude while calling it the new age of progressive/collective thought.
The corrupting of the educational systems, since the days of Lenin and Trotsky have found fertile field in our so-called American institutions of higher learning. They are the breeding grounds of modern day socialism/communism/progressivism. Not new ideas....just a new generation of minds. Liberal progressive instructors are harbingers of darkness and oppression, not superior in thought speaking of the promise of a new age full of freedom and light. It is the fear of many that they have almost completely succeeded in the corruption of our children. We must bring an end to that process.
If we are to survive as a free people we must remember our history, make our strongest stand against the progressive misbegotten power advocates, starting now and continuing onward with determination, for the next generation, on to the next, and the next, sticking steadfast to the foundation on which we were stood up, and doing all that we can to return/remain to it, so that we never lose sight of what it is to be free - where we must get back to, to be truly free once again.
By:
The Tradesman and Lady Boots (mostly Lady Boots)
Overview: The Point of Choice
Our opposition is using every bit of our natural compassion and belief, our sensitive Christian tenets of faith that call us to volunteer and help the downtrodden, and by political measures take that very noble belief system, regulate and mandate our compassion into something that only serves to empower their own political positions. The mandates do make them more powerful, but they do not make them more righteous, and these mandates do not make us less righteous in our honest intent, but they do make us less powerful as a people.
Lets go back to the beginnings of the Communist party before Lenin, before Trotsky, actually to the origins before Marx and Engels codified it into what it was to become. The very beginnings of communism were based on Jewish tradition. A religion and a life style. Traditions that willingly embraced in the hearts of the faithful that seek out means to help the community unselfishly as a whole, through the personal responsibility that every member embraced and dedicated to the well being of every other member, that being the life style. Granted that is a major over simplification, but it gives us the perspective of a starting point. It also illustrates the importance of keeping our religions and our politics separate and apart. The authorities that source to both are separate and apart. One speaks to the earthy workings of man, the other to the spiritual and a Higher Authority and that higher authorities natural laws.
The traditions and high ideals that were basically forwarded at the beginning of socialism/communism, were noble and therefore invited no room for criticism from a noble people claiming to want to live noble lives. They preyed upon our natural good natures. Voluntarily and with willing heart the noble tenants that were already embraced lured people into the political psychology. The Socialist dogma that grew at a slow pace, sourced from the writings of the Talmudic, infiltrated and infected just about every human endeavor. Trotsky in 1927 even coined a word that was intended to discredit and ostracize and brow beat those who questioned the Socialist agenda,that term was 'Racist'
From a worthy beginning, slowly the political polluted the faith based movement into a non-volunteer but a mandated collective system. The Jewish traditions became the door through which the willing walked into the politic of socialism/to a deeper degree communism where benevolent choice was set aside, and conformity was mandated. Volunteering to shelter and love your fellow man was not achieved through a love and following the admonitions of the Almighty, but by and only by, the authority of the State.....eventually the belief in the Almighty was abandoned. Strong socialist states today have no official affection for a Higher Power. Only pockets of 'the religious' can be found in these societies, there exists much atheism in socialist countries today.
Then came The American Revolution
The American Revolution, gave us the first dynamic introduction, on a nation sized scale of the experiment of self rule, shook the foundations of what had through the ages of time, in every historical society and nations that had risen and fell, the challenge to the "The Divine Rights of Kings". No longer could that ruling paradigm that created, manipulated, rewarded and abused the classes in the societies they ruled, claim as a leadership the divine right to rule over a common folk. No longer must a common folk be dictated to, concerning what they were going to do and how they were going to live.
I will grant to the argument, that the Iron Rule had been somewhat challenged successfully before at Runnymede when the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta. While that instrument did infringe on the totalitarian rule of Kings, it only affected the Peerage of Nobles. We have seen through the times where Liberty has flourished the continuance of the wealthy, those with and inherited position, those who have accumulated wealth to create for themselves a class of their own, some label them today as the Rich and powerful Crony Capitalists. History will always record groups that morph into the Robber barons who strive to be a ruling class, and those who seek to rule will always adapt.
But in this new America, The spark was lit....and it was a dangerous idea.
The original revolutionaries had done something that no other nation or great society had done before in the history of the world, they created a Republic that incorporated Democratic principles, and those self same principles were to be constrained by a document we know as the Constitution. The Constitution was to be our guide, our mooring, our launch to every aspect of a sovereign future.
No more in a new nation common folk fought for and won their own freedom to create and dwell within, could any right of any king claim dominion in this new land and there was to be no High,Middle, or Low justice meted out at such a hand or carried out upon a king's whim. but the seed of individual freedom, and the concept that no earthly authority granted us our positions as sovereigns over our existence was born in the lands of America and in the hearts of her citizens with the unique psychology of fundamental belief in "God given Rights". The words of the Declaration of Independence held the power to free not only ourselves but to spread such hope to the rest of the world. That basic tenet and cornerstone of our experiment in self rule enshrined in the Constitution is now under attack from within and without by self serving detractors
Today we have a declared socialist running on the Democratic ticket for the highest office in our land. He enjoys some strong popular support, he is polling in the lead in some primary states. This man leads the democratic socialist caucus in our Congress, it is said to have over 70 members. These people have been elected to their positions by us. How do socialists have such support in a free and sovereign nation that emphasizes the individual as exceptional, the State's as sovereigns in their own right, and not the collective as principle? Last week's democratic debate was a contest between who could collectively gift our society with more 'free entitlements'. Entitlements that we are to believe we are horn with has replaced the 'natural tights' we were endowed with. The State has become the benefactor, not Our Creator. I ask you, how have we arrived at this place in American political dogma today? Why have we accepted it mostly without question?
THE PATH to the CROSSROAD
There are stages on the politic scale, Ideologies of government.
According to Wiki They are:
- Anarchism, Anarchism is anti-state, asserting that all hierarchical power structures are corrupt.
- Absolutism, A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws).
- Communism, The Labor Theory Of Value best represents this, as if you are lost and alone, you cannot live off capital, currency, and it does not matter to your class, but if you live off your labor then you will continue to live. No one should privately own anything so everyone will be equal. Stalin, Lennon, and Marx all took the theory to dictatorship. Marx forwarded this change through revolution.
- Conservatism, Conservatism emphasized a 'natural order' based on tradition and slow evolutionary change.
- Environmentalism, Environmentalism (or ecologism) is an ideology which rejects the human-centered core of other political theories, and emphasizes instead the priorities of the planet Earth.
- Fascism, is less a rational or logical theory of ideas than it is a recipe for power and political opportunism. The ideology is nationalist, authoritarian, militaristic, (somewhat) socialist and action-based rather than theory-based.
- Liberalism, Three sub-sections
- Individualism - individual freedoms, in a civil society.
- Classic Liberalism - Including natural rights, utilitarianism, economic liberalism and social Darwinism. Emerged alongside the rise of capitalism to reflect the political interests of the burgeoning middle classes. During the transition between absolute monarchies to constitutional governments, liberalism articulated the rights of those outside the traditional power structure to freedom from arbitrary rule and economic restrictions.
- Modern Liberalism - Including Freedom, Welfarism, and Keynesianism. Liberalism first developed a welfare agenda in response to the rampant social inequality and misery that emerged in the wake of the industrial revolution and in response to the articulation of rival ideologies such as socialism.
- Nationalism, Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.
- Socialism, Socialism is concerned with welfare of the people, and as such is concerned with providing healthcare and education and the provision of other necessities of a healthy life in order to create a more 'level' society. Socialism seeks these changes through nationalization, mandates of government and social engineering. (Peaceful revolution)
America began as a Democratic Republic, democratic as in electing our representatives.
re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb′lĭk) n.
1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican form of government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field.
America, a truly unique creation, a democratic-representative-republic. It was an unprecedented, novel concept we began with, it was immature and grew as it would without example. A strong and healthy, righteous and willful, trembling and vulnerable, determined and courageous government/nation.
Today the opposition to embrace our founding doctrine has bluffed us into believing we are a Democracy (absent the republic part) which has evolved to a higher plain and abandoned the republic having found it to be of little consequence. All of the ideologies of government listed above have had their erosive or diminishing influence on the Democratic Republican Foundations we began with.
FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS
In the Colonial days it was an accepted practice to emulate the English pattern they were familiar with, of the rich running everything and the common people doing what they were told/expected to do. Before the Revolution, what made it different in America from European models, was the abundance of land that could be farmed for sustenance, survival, and individual profit. Opportunity to make a better life.
In Europe, parcels passed down from generation to generation in Europe gave the individuals the mindset they could do for themselves and could Control/Rule themselves on their own lands. The people living on their lands did so with their good graces, subject to their dictates, thrived or did not thrive according to the benevolence or lack thereof of the ruler over these lands.
Our strong belief in the Creator (America was founded on Christian principles) and the failed history of serving kings and landlords became the basis for our removing and rejecting the Foreign rule of Kings.
OUR NATION BEGAN ADVANCE DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
Advance American history to the time after our next major conflict, The Civil War.
The cause against Slavery was minor as catalyst that precipitated the war, and more importantly to the people of that era, was the supremacy of States Rights over Federal Rights. To that effect a Civil war had been fought, and the proponents of Federal Rights supreme over the Peoples and States Rights took root. That was the larger government role, there was a personal role taking place in society.
Human nature being what it is, those maintaining their richness after the war wanted to maintain their control over and profit from what they still considered the lower classes, and those who wanted to become rich and advantage themselves in the reconstruction chaos that followed the war all sought their opportunity. That gave rise to the Robber Barons of the 1800's
In the Mid 1800's the Robber Barons were mainly situated in the Northern States and held title through many private banks liens on Southern landowners real property and were charging what we would call usurious rates of interest. The Robber Barons reverted to what the old Liege Lords of previous centuries were prone to do, namely abusing their workers. This phenomenon was not only happening in America, but it was gaining a resurgence world wide.
That was the original impetus and lure of Socialism to the downtrodden common folk everywhere. It travelled to America with European immigrants. However, the common folk - the immigrant, did not discern that it was in fact the old order reasserting itself under the False Flag of "an experiment to liberate the workers of the world from the tyranny of the rich", when in fact it was just another way to have the people voluntarily place the twin yokes of oppression and exploitation around their necks again in a free land, while believing that they themselves could still remain free and self directed. A man/woman cannot serve two masters.
THE SLOPE...ON STEROIDS
Introduce another 'ism'.
This is what is happening today under another False Flag called Progressivism.
It is the same co-mingled ideologies, repackaged as something grand and new, sold to a more sophisticated public. Lipstick on a pig, does not change the reality of the animal. The Traditional Abusive Ruling Class is still trying to retain their control, and are gaining inroads to that old time total control because the people have been politically asleep for over 115 years.
The tenants of socialism and communism immigrated to America and have gradually and incrementally morphed to 'the progressive' theology enhanced through revisionist historical telling. Under the guise of again "Helping The Downtrodden", they are again seeking to enslave and drag us backward into the old age-old world ways. If they succeed We The People will again suffer as subjects while they maintain their strangle hold on all the political and monetary power that there is in our Nation, advanced with their own ties to the world. Much has been done in broad and in fine to advance globalization, the prize for them is enormous. They decry the 1%, pointing fingers at all but themselves. How ironic that they are the self-same, but if you are not member to their portion of extreme wealth and protected clique, you are the wealthy they scapegoat to advance class envy. They wish us to completely miss the FACT that they are the rich they are so easily and publicly condemning.
As I started this Treatise out as Americans being at a cross roads, I meant that we are actually at the tipping point where we will either go toward and restore our original Revolutionary Freedoms, understand, embrace and restore our original Constitution, reject the old world Politics of Progressivism for ourselves and most importantly our children? Or, will we silently and quietly slip back into the condition of servitude, slide into the grand abyss of history as a beautiful-magnificent-failed experiment, where the common man could not rise and remain standing.
Has the reign of Kings, many kings, in many lands with self appointed - ignorantly anointed Rulers returned/began once again? I pray not.
THE CROSSROADS
It's up to us individually and in concert with each other.
So many of us do the arduous work of seeking to speak to and expose the lies and subterfuges of the progressives. We work to keep pushing back the darkness. We know that we live in a critical time requiring critical action, and how easily our country can slip back into servitude. Truly examine your lives, how much freedom to you realize? How much servitude do you suffer? Honestly seek and then find the truth for yourself, embrace it and share it with your children. Our educational systems from top to bottom revise, sanitize, and re-invent the truth, revise our true history to suit their dogma, and indoctrinate the same to our young and fertile minds.
We must succeed in maintaining this knowledge, we must succeed in sharing it to offer honest counter to the progressive doctrines that blind and twist our children toward their mold and psychology. What they teach is not new, it is old, it wants to take us backward to an Old Order of Servitude while calling it the new age of progressive/collective thought.
The corrupting of the educational systems, since the days of Lenin and Trotsky have found fertile field in our so-called American institutions of higher learning. They are the breeding grounds of modern day socialism/communism/progressivism. Not new ideas....just a new generation of minds. Liberal progressive instructors are harbingers of darkness and oppression, not superior in thought speaking of the promise of a new age full of freedom and light. It is the fear of many that they have almost completely succeeded in the corruption of our children. We must bring an end to that process.
If we are to survive as a free people we must remember our history, make our strongest stand against the progressive misbegotten power advocates, starting now and continuing onward with determination, for the next generation, on to the next, and the next, sticking steadfast to the foundation on which we were stood up, and doing all that we can to return/remain to it, so that we never lose sight of what it is to be free - where we must get back to, to be truly free once again.
By:
The Tradesman and Lady Boots (mostly Lady Boots)
Oathkeepers Plan To Protect Our Children On College Campuses
by Jason Van Tatenhove and Stewart Rhodes * 10/10/2015
For more information, contact Elias Alias, or Jason Van Tatenhove at Oathkeepers.org
Reporting from Roseburg, Oregon
In the wake of Umpqua Community College shooting, Oath Keepers is going to form college student groups on college campuses across the U.S. (starting here in Oregon) to teach the students to fight back. As part of its new initiative, S.T.O.P (Students Taking Over Protection) program, Oath Keepers military, police, and first-responder instructors will teach the students to fight back with empty hands, improvised weapons, knives, and firearms, and will teach them effective combat mindset and awareness techniques and strategies so the students can be their own "first-responders" and take out an active shooter.
Just as post 9-11, where people no longer submit and cooperate in their own murders on planes, the obvious answer to school shootings on college and high school campuses is that the students must stop submitting and cooperating in their own murders. They must fight back, and we will show them how.
Like millions of other young Americans, these college students have been conditioned since grade school to be passive, submissive and "non-violent" - taught that violence is "never the answer" despite reality showing that sometimes violence is the ONLY answer. So it should be no surprise that the students at Umpqua Community College (with the notable exception of Army veteran Chris Mintz) were passive, submissive, and obeyed the commands of the shooter. They allowed themselves to be herded into a corner and then complied with his commands to lay down on the floor and obediently remained on the floor until ordered one at a time to stand up where they were asked by the shooter if they were religious or not. If they answered "no" they were shot in the arm or the leg, If they answered "yes" they were shot in the head. The shooter did this one at a time, one after another, with the students obediently laying on the floor until it was their turn to stand and be shot. The conditioning was so severe that even when it was made clear that they were all to be shot, they still remained on the floor.
What they should have done was to instantly rush, tackle, and subdue the attacker. Even without training in hand-to hand-combat or gun disarmament they would have put an end to the shooting just by attacking the attacker. This is not a "hardware" problem. It is a "software" problem. It is a problem of mindset. Young Americans have been conditioned to not to fight back even when it is the only option that will save lives and end the violence.
So Oath Keepers is now going to form Oath Keepers Student groups on every U.S. college campus, starting right here in Roseburg, Oregon, at Umpqua Community College, where our local chapter leader, Rob Price, is an alumni and we also have Oath Keeper members that are now currently students. We will teach them to fight back with their empty hands, with improvised weapons, with less than lethal tools such as pepper spray, com-tech stingers, kubotans, etc. and lethal force tools such as knives and guns. We will provide a full spectrum of training and leave up to
them which self defense tool they will use. But the most important shift will be in their mindset.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes taught rape prevention and street crime survival for three years as a volunteer instructor for the Jean Nidetch Womens Center at UNLV, teaching students to do exactly what we will be teaching them now across the country, with a focus on combat mindset and need to resist. This includes awareness and mental conditioning so that they can see an attack coming and have a plan for response.
Also assisting in this curriculum will be John Karriman, Oath Keeper Leader from Missouri, who is a current serving police academy defensive tactics instructor and Rick Moon, our Arkansas state chapter president who is a U.S. Army Special Forces Veteran and has also worked for TSA in threat analysis and identification methodologies. In fact, while working for TSA, Rick Moon actually identified and stopped an active shooter at a airport before he could open fire.
John Karriman, in his defensive tactics classes, routinely has the students undergo a realistic active shooter scenario. One student is given a semiautomatic Simunition handgun, firing paint marker rounds, and plays the role of an active shooter who walks into the room and opens fire while the 10 - 12 other students react. He teaches the students to react by instantly attacking the attacker, en-mass, and taking him down and disarming him. In all of times that he has run this scenario, no more than two students are shot by the role-playing attacker before they are able to overpower shooter. Even without training in disarming techniques, any group of people - even unarmed - can overpower an armed attacker just by taking decisive action - by instantly attacking the attacker. This is the most important thing to teach students. But we will also teach them effective techniques. Each class will include running through this very scenario with a paintball gun or Simunitions pain marker gun. And each class will also be taught the full spectrum of effective tools of defense, and how to use them.
Once again this is first and foremost a mental "software" issue, not a "hardware issue." Much as post 9-11 we no longer just submit to an attacker on an airline, but instead attack and subdue them, we must also do the same when it comes to active shooter situations in our schools. We will start in our U.S. colleges with these student groups and then work backwards through our high schools (forming Oath Keepers high school student groups) to undo the conditioning that our kids are being subjected to, which makes them passive victims in the face of violence.
Remember, this passive victim conditioning makes them submissive not just to private violence, abuse, and oppression, but also to government violence, abuse, and oppression. And we believe this is the big-picture goal of such social conditioning - a nation of passive, submissive, and obedient serfs. Those of us who are police, military and first-responder veterans understand the need for the warrior mindset of decisive action, and we need to pass it on. It is our duty to teach our young people to defend themselves and each other. This effective answer does not rely on politicians, but will be done by the people themselves, and we will lead the way.
Below is a link to a video of an interview with Red List News in which Stewart Rhodes and Jason Van Tatenhove discuss this program and the details around it with hosts Dave Hodges and Jim White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP4NWa8SYIg&feature=youtu.be
Oath Keepers National, will be publishing a full curriculum and "training videos" that our local and state chapters can use to institute this program on school campuses. Please check back to the oathkeepers.org website for upcoming details.
Read the article at Red List News http://redlistnews.com/red-list-news-interview-oath-keepers/
For more information, contact Elias Alias, or Jason Van Tatenhove at Oathkeepers.org
Reporting from Roseburg, Oregon
In the wake of Umpqua Community College shooting, Oath Keepers is going to form college student groups on college campuses across the U.S. (starting here in Oregon) to teach the students to fight back. As part of its new initiative, S.T.O.P (Students Taking Over Protection) program, Oath Keepers military, police, and first-responder instructors will teach the students to fight back with empty hands, improvised weapons, knives, and firearms, and will teach them effective combat mindset and awareness techniques and strategies so the students can be their own "first-responders" and take out an active shooter.
Just as post 9-11, where people no longer submit and cooperate in their own murders on planes, the obvious answer to school shootings on college and high school campuses is that the students must stop submitting and cooperating in their own murders. They must fight back, and we will show them how.
Like millions of other young Americans, these college students have been conditioned since grade school to be passive, submissive and "non-violent" - taught that violence is "never the answer" despite reality showing that sometimes violence is the ONLY answer. So it should be no surprise that the students at Umpqua Community College (with the notable exception of Army veteran Chris Mintz) were passive, submissive, and obeyed the commands of the shooter. They allowed themselves to be herded into a corner and then complied with his commands to lay down on the floor and obediently remained on the floor until ordered one at a time to stand up where they were asked by the shooter if they were religious or not. If they answered "no" they were shot in the arm or the leg, If they answered "yes" they were shot in the head. The shooter did this one at a time, one after another, with the students obediently laying on the floor until it was their turn to stand and be shot. The conditioning was so severe that even when it was made clear that they were all to be shot, they still remained on the floor.
What they should have done was to instantly rush, tackle, and subdue the attacker. Even without training in hand-to hand-combat or gun disarmament they would have put an end to the shooting just by attacking the attacker. This is not a "hardware" problem. It is a "software" problem. It is a problem of mindset. Young Americans have been conditioned to not to fight back even when it is the only option that will save lives and end the violence.
So Oath Keepers is now going to form Oath Keepers Student groups on every U.S. college campus, starting right here in Roseburg, Oregon, at Umpqua Community College, where our local chapter leader, Rob Price, is an alumni and we also have Oath Keeper members that are now currently students. We will teach them to fight back with their empty hands, with improvised weapons, with less than lethal tools such as pepper spray, com-tech stingers, kubotans, etc. and lethal force tools such as knives and guns. We will provide a full spectrum of training and leave up to
them which self defense tool they will use. But the most important shift will be in their mindset.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes taught rape prevention and street crime survival for three years as a volunteer instructor for the Jean Nidetch Womens Center at UNLV, teaching students to do exactly what we will be teaching them now across the country, with a focus on combat mindset and need to resist. This includes awareness and mental conditioning so that they can see an attack coming and have a plan for response.
Also assisting in this curriculum will be John Karriman, Oath Keeper Leader from Missouri, who is a current serving police academy defensive tactics instructor and Rick Moon, our Arkansas state chapter president who is a U.S. Army Special Forces Veteran and has also worked for TSA in threat analysis and identification methodologies. In fact, while working for TSA, Rick Moon actually identified and stopped an active shooter at a airport before he could open fire.
John Karriman, in his defensive tactics classes, routinely has the students undergo a realistic active shooter scenario. One student is given a semiautomatic Simunition handgun, firing paint marker rounds, and plays the role of an active shooter who walks into the room and opens fire while the 10 - 12 other students react. He teaches the students to react by instantly attacking the attacker, en-mass, and taking him down and disarming him. In all of times that he has run this scenario, no more than two students are shot by the role-playing attacker before they are able to overpower shooter. Even without training in disarming techniques, any group of people - even unarmed - can overpower an armed attacker just by taking decisive action - by instantly attacking the attacker. This is the most important thing to teach students. But we will also teach them effective techniques. Each class will include running through this very scenario with a paintball gun or Simunitions pain marker gun. And each class will also be taught the full spectrum of effective tools of defense, and how to use them.
Once again this is first and foremost a mental "software" issue, not a "hardware issue." Much as post 9-11 we no longer just submit to an attacker on an airline, but instead attack and subdue them, we must also do the same when it comes to active shooter situations in our schools. We will start in our U.S. colleges with these student groups and then work backwards through our high schools (forming Oath Keepers high school student groups) to undo the conditioning that our kids are being subjected to, which makes them passive victims in the face of violence.
Remember, this passive victim conditioning makes them submissive not just to private violence, abuse, and oppression, but also to government violence, abuse, and oppression. And we believe this is the big-picture goal of such social conditioning - a nation of passive, submissive, and obedient serfs. Those of us who are police, military and first-responder veterans understand the need for the warrior mindset of decisive action, and we need to pass it on. It is our duty to teach our young people to defend themselves and each other. This effective answer does not rely on politicians, but will be done by the people themselves, and we will lead the way.
Below is a link to a video of an interview with Red List News in which Stewart Rhodes and Jason Van Tatenhove discuss this program and the details around it with hosts Dave Hodges and Jim White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP4NWa8SYIg&feature=youtu.be
Oath Keepers National, will be publishing a full curriculum and "training videos" that our local and state chapters can use to institute this program on school campuses. Please check back to the oathkeepers.org website for upcoming details.
Read the article at Red List News http://redlistnews.com/red-list-news-interview-oath-keepers/
Guest Editorial by Gerald Todd the 'Wild Vortex' The 17th Amendment
Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XVII(Introduced May 13, 1912; Ratified April 8, 1913)The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.SummaryThe 17th Amendment must be repealed as a key part of returning our nation’s historically successful representative Constitutional Republic under God. The Senator must again represent the interests of his or her state at the pleasure of its legislature. This is essential to maintain a proper balance of governance that serves the greater interests of the state and the people who elected their legislators to govern the affairs of the state and those they send to Washington. Subsidiarity must be served in Solidarity. The 17th Amendment broke this bond. History leading to the 17th AmendmentThe Founders from the beginning addressed the near impossible balance of power between states with widely diverse populations. The House of Representatives is structured with one Representative per given block of population. For example, Alaska, the largest state in land area has only one House member,while California has 52. In the House, other than the right to speak and introduce bills, Alaska has no real voice.Each state was allowed two Senators to counterbalance the overwhelming wealth and population spread of the various states. Senators were to represent the interests of the state and were appointed by their state legislatures. Essentially, they were to be lobbyists for their respective states. This assured the broader interests of the state versus a Senate controlled by and loyal to the central government. A state’s two Senators brought a level of equality of the states, especially in matters of national concern such as defense from foreign invasion, foreign relations and interstate commerce.One historical argument for the Confederacy was its loyalty to states’ rights. Historians claim this was largely to retain slavery in the South. This was a straw dog for the Northern states to use to justify war. The North was leaning more away from the original Constitutional definition of states rights in favor of a strong central government. Even though the South lost the Civil War and slaves were freed, most ended up in the British form of slavery. This meant the former slave or poor immigrant or uneducated were subject to a limited ability Page 1 8/19/2015.
To earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. Theloss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largelyCatholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party– even though that party long ago turned its back on them.
To earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. Theloss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largelyCatholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party– even though that party long ago turned its back on them.Both Capital and Labor leadership reacted to having Judeo-Christian morality re-impressed on them by turning against not only the Church, but the Constitution. For Labor, it was the leaning to Communism and the corruption it brought along with the restoration of an “us vs. them” mentality even ifthe employer is fair and equitable. For Capital, it was the urge to control the monetary system and to centralize government where it could be controlled by capital and its speculations – not capitalism. The pristine definition of Capitalism is in High-Finance’s role as the servant of commerce, investment in vision and courage, building personal and family savings and as a vehicle for philanthropy! Greed cannot handle such a wide and free distribution of the work of others.Passing the 17th AmendmentIf government is to be controlled by a small group, it must nullify states rights. Once central control is established, it becomes possible to control the monetary system extra-constitutionally. Until thistime, an American was first known as “a Virginian,” “a New Yorker” – by his state of residence and property. The communal “American” came later. States enjoyed the overall protection of a national military, but retained their own local law enforcement and militia’s under command of the Governor. This is still constitutionally true, but much of this has been usurped by the National Guard system and the modern rise of so-called Homeland Security which is attempting to override everything. Without the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the specific interests of their states. With the 17th Amendment, popularly elected Senators soon found themselves representing what is often called “the common good” of the Senate’s exclusive club. The balance of representation with a bi-cameral Congress was thoroughly compromised. Within the states, the Governor, legislature and their balanced representation to the Federal government could well represent the needs of the local community – the state and for a prosperous and competitive role in a united nation.The Philosophical Reason for Repealing the 17th AmendmentPage 2 8/19/2015.
The Constitutional structure of the United States follows the ideal philosophical hierarchy of the equally important normative sciences of Philosophy. 1. Aesthetics (Beauty) – the Declaration of Independence and its acknowledgement of our Creator’s endowment balanced by a litany of the wrongs faced under despotism. 2. Ethics found in the Constitution to establish the rules of common discourse and behavior.3. …and Logic of the Bill of Rights that protects the veracity and integrity of the Constitution. This structure sets the natural flow of the next elements, Subsidiarity, Solidarity and Chaos leading to Harmony. The 17th Amendment disrupts the ideal order set by the Founders seeking the wisdom God offers those who ask for it.1. Subsidiarity establishes the proper order of responsibility and term of assistance starting with the individual, the family, the community, the state and finally the federal government. The higher up the ladder of governance the shorter the term of assistance and regulation. Before the 17th Amendment it was almost natural, often in spite of the machinations of leaders,elected, appointed or usurped – the system worked and had built in means of correction. The individual would be ashamed to accept charity beyond what meets his immediate needs.The 17th Amendment violates Subsidiarity by moving a properly placed representative of authority higher up than is honestly manageable by those who are pledged the Senators’ loyalty and responsibility.2. Solidarity – Every network has a hierarchy, no matter how invisible. With the 17th Amendment power brokers broke the Senators’ solidarity with their state legislators and therefore the people they represent at the proper level of subsidiarity.3. Chaos – The Chaos of an expectant, curious and hard working people leads to the Harmony of discovery, development and the integrity of stewardship. Chaos of the streets occurs when rulers fail to carry out their responsibilities. This is also true when they do so after swearing a solemn oath to perform as expected within the framework of the Constitution and the wishes of the people who are likewise invested in the national order. This is a difficult task in a constitutional republic. It is impossible in a democracy, which over time will vote itself non-existent wealth and immoral privileges until it dies of depravity, debt and starvation. Democracies under “progressive” rule tend to eat their parents as well as their children!The 17th Amendment contributes to chaos because it cannot allow the proper order of responsibility and rule. It must be repealed and the proper role of Senators representing the interests of the state they serve must take precedence.
©2013 Gerald V. Todd * toddyo1935@att.net
Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XVII(Introduced May 13, 1912; Ratified April 8, 1913)The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.SummaryThe 17th Amendment must be repealed as a key part of returning our nation’s historically successful representative Constitutional Republic under God. The Senator must again represent the interests of his or her state at the pleasure of its legislature. This is essential to maintain a proper balance of governance that serves the greater interests of the state and the people who elected their legislators to govern the affairs of the state and those they send to Washington. Subsidiarity must be served in Solidarity. The 17th Amendment broke this bond. History leading to the 17th AmendmentThe Founders from the beginning addressed the near impossible balance of power between states with widely diverse populations. The House of Representatives is structured with one Representative per given block of population. For example, Alaska, the largest state in land area has only one House member,while California has 52. In the House, other than the right to speak and introduce bills, Alaska has no real voice.Each state was allowed two Senators to counterbalance the overwhelming wealth and population spread of the various states. Senators were to represent the interests of the state and were appointed by their state legislatures. Essentially, they were to be lobbyists for their respective states. This assured the broader interests of the state versus a Senate controlled by and loyal to the central government. A state’s two Senators brought a level of equality of the states, especially in matters of national concern such as defense from foreign invasion, foreign relations and interstate commerce.One historical argument for the Confederacy was its loyalty to states’ rights. Historians claim this was largely to retain slavery in the South. This was a straw dog for the Northern states to use to justify war. The North was leaning more away from the original Constitutional definition of states rights in favor of a strong central government. Even though the South lost the Civil War and slaves were freed, most ended up in the British form of slavery. This meant the former slave or poor immigrant or uneducated were subject to a limited ability Page 1 8/19/2015.
To earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. Theloss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largelyCatholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party– even though that party long ago turned its back on them.
To earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. Theloss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largelyCatholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party– even though that party long ago turned its back on them.Both Capital and Labor leadership reacted to having Judeo-Christian morality re-impressed on them by turning against not only the Church, but the Constitution. For Labor, it was the leaning to Communism and the corruption it brought along with the restoration of an “us vs. them” mentality even ifthe employer is fair and equitable. For Capital, it was the urge to control the monetary system and to centralize government where it could be controlled by capital and its speculations – not capitalism. The pristine definition of Capitalism is in High-Finance’s role as the servant of commerce, investment in vision and courage, building personal and family savings and as a vehicle for philanthropy! Greed cannot handle such a wide and free distribution of the work of others.Passing the 17th AmendmentIf government is to be controlled by a small group, it must nullify states rights. Once central control is established, it becomes possible to control the monetary system extra-constitutionally. Until thistime, an American was first known as “a Virginian,” “a New Yorker” – by his state of residence and property. The communal “American” came later. States enjoyed the overall protection of a national military, but retained their own local law enforcement and militia’s under command of the Governor. This is still constitutionally true, but much of this has been usurped by the National Guard system and the modern rise of so-called Homeland Security which is attempting to override everything. Without the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the specific interests of their states. With the 17th Amendment, popularly elected Senators soon found themselves representing what is often called “the common good” of the Senate’s exclusive club. The balance of representation with a bi-cameral Congress was thoroughly compromised. Within the states, the Governor, legislature and their balanced representation to the Federal government could well represent the needs of the local community – the state and for a prosperous and competitive role in a united nation.The Philosophical Reason for Repealing the 17th AmendmentPage 2 8/19/2015.
The Constitutional structure of the United States follows the ideal philosophical hierarchy of the equally important normative sciences of Philosophy. 1. Aesthetics (Beauty) – the Declaration of Independence and its acknowledgement of our Creator’s endowment balanced by a litany of the wrongs faced under despotism. 2. Ethics found in the Constitution to establish the rules of common discourse and behavior.3. …and Logic of the Bill of Rights that protects the veracity and integrity of the Constitution. This structure sets the natural flow of the next elements, Subsidiarity, Solidarity and Chaos leading to Harmony. The 17th Amendment disrupts the ideal order set by the Founders seeking the wisdom God offers those who ask for it.1. Subsidiarity establishes the proper order of responsibility and term of assistance starting with the individual, the family, the community, the state and finally the federal government. The higher up the ladder of governance the shorter the term of assistance and regulation. Before the 17th Amendment it was almost natural, often in spite of the machinations of leaders,elected, appointed or usurped – the system worked and had built in means of correction. The individual would be ashamed to accept charity beyond what meets his immediate needs.The 17th Amendment violates Subsidiarity by moving a properly placed representative of authority higher up than is honestly manageable by those who are pledged the Senators’ loyalty and responsibility.2. Solidarity – Every network has a hierarchy, no matter how invisible. With the 17th Amendment power brokers broke the Senators’ solidarity with their state legislators and therefore the people they represent at the proper level of subsidiarity.3. Chaos – The Chaos of an expectant, curious and hard working people leads to the Harmony of discovery, development and the integrity of stewardship. Chaos of the streets occurs when rulers fail to carry out their responsibilities. This is also true when they do so after swearing a solemn oath to perform as expected within the framework of the Constitution and the wishes of the people who are likewise invested in the national order. This is a difficult task in a constitutional republic. It is impossible in a democracy, which over time will vote itself non-existent wealth and immoral privileges until it dies of depravity, debt and starvation. Democracies under “progressive” rule tend to eat their parents as well as their children!The 17th Amendment contributes to chaos because it cannot allow the proper order of responsibility and rule. It must be repealed and the proper role of Senators representing the interests of the state they serve must take precedence.
©2013 Gerald V. Todd * toddyo1935@att.net
Guest Editorial submitted by McFixit1 8/18/15How we can get the 14th,16th,17th repealed?
We must take action to insure the 14th,16th,and 17th Amendments will be repealed. It won't happen overnight but by working together we can make it happen.
It will take the cooperation of concerned groups of people, focused with a single minded purpose, to see the Constitution returned to it's former intent, and again be what the Founders created it to be.
The rub is the how to do it.
It will take the various existing and established grass roots groups, to combine their efforts to accomplish that Repeal Amendment. Without those elements coming together, there will be no amendment, and the progressives will usher in a NWO Socialist America. It will take firm commitment, a lot of work, and a lot of personal time. It won't happen overnight, but if we decide to cooperate and work together , instead of tearing down each others ideas, it will happen. If anyone has a better plan, post it here for discussion.
.
The First Step is; to know what methods are available to create an amendment, or repeal existing amendments, so we have a starting point to go from.
There are four methods of amending the Constitution I know of;
1. Congressional called Article V amendment proposal convention.
2. State petitioned for Article V amendment proposal convention.
3. States Compact
4. Nullification.
As far as I have been able to research, those four are the only legitimate ways to amend the Constitution. If anyone knows of other ways please post them for discussion.
The Second Step is; creating the grass roots combined network structure to accomplish what needs to be done. To do that, it will take people in every group to convince others of their respective groups, combining efforts will make the movement to repeal stronger, and success attainable, to get the repeal amendment passed. Once the network is established, the various Tea Party's and other Conservative Groups, can provide the volunteers needed for the boots on the ground work of contacting State Legislators, and convincing them to take action. Since the various groups are very territorial and clannish, an agreement needs be formed between them to work together for the specific purpose of Amending the Constitution through the Repeal of the 14th,16th,17th, and returning it to it's original intent. Everyone of the groups should be able to agree on that because the result would be in their own groups self interest of getting an intrusive government out of their lives, and setting up the framework for the other issues the groups want to accomplish..If anyone has a more workable solution for step two post it for discussion
The Third Step is; After the infrastructure of the groups is in place, the amendment method/methods which people want to use, would respond to, and would work towards, can be determined by canvassing the groups and setting what is agreed on as the method to be used. Once it is determined which method/methods are going to be used, the real work can begin.This consensus on what to do must be worked out and agreed on by all the groups in advance so there is a focused direction/plan to work for.
Since the people can not petition for an Amendment proposal convention to be called by themselves, the State Legislatures will have to be convinced that it is in their best self interests to petition for one. The groups will have to agree on exactly what they want their States to propose as an amendment and keep it consistent for every State.That too will have to be worked out in advance and agreed on by the groups.
I suggest we keep it simple and propose the repeal of all three amendments 14th,16th,17th with Mangus Colorado's twenty word proposal, and push for that. If anyone has a better solution, post it for discussion.
Step Four is. The execution of the plan where the groups in every State contact their State Legislators with demands those legislators adopt a proposal to Congress with the same exact wording for that specific 20 word amendment of Mangus Colorado's. The proposal is to be sent by the States to Congress requesting Congress immediately send it out to the States immediately for Formal Ratification and that there will be no changes in the language of the proposal if we have 38 states signed on.
Or, lacking the 38 States, a request by the States to Congress for a States petitioned for Article V amendment proposal convention if we only have 34 states signed on. That way Congress can't change anything in the proposal or take control of the convention. We have to get moving on pushing through the Repeal ASAP.
( bear in mind that it will take about 100-200 people in every State to hammer their State Representatives and Senators with phone calls, faxes, letters, and also using their website contact forms to convince them to move on the issue)
If anyone has better ideas or solutions post them here for discussion.
For more detailed information;
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
INSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE ACTION!
STEP BY STEP
1) Read the Article V site information and the 28th amendment.
2) Make sure you understand why all 3 offending Amendments must be repealed [they all work together to limit rights].
3) Make a list of all local council elected officials and contact information.
4) Get the names and addresses of each member of your State legislators including phone numbers.
5) Find the addresses for each of the Party county offices - Democrat and Republican.
6) Download the brochures either color or black and white and ask local printers or copy shops to donate 500 copies.
7) Take or mail the brochures to council meetings and hand them out - ask the council to speak on the issue if you like.
8) Take or mail the brochures to the office of every State Legislator including the governor and other officers.
9) Hand carry a brochure to every local new paper, TV station, and radio station asking them to support the cause.
10) Post a brochure on all public bulletin boards at shores and public buildings.
11) Leave copies in Beauty shops, doctors’ offices, and libraries if they allow.
12) Now start a phone contact program calling a few State legislators each few days until all have been contacted.
13) Ask the local Tea Party, Libertarian group, Party office members to help contact the Legislatures.
14) This project is bipartisan as it involves saving the Republic and giving the power back to the States [closer to us].
15) Now contact all the groups and grassroots supporters and hold local and State Capital Article V demonstrations.
16) Keep emailing to the letters to the editors of the many papers in the nation - if millions email they will take notice.
17) Every letter to the editor gets read by some employee of the publication so keep writing.
18) Attend all party meetings and take handouts - include any town meetings.
19) Post the ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com link in every social media or web site you visit.
20) Hold your head up high as you are now an active part of a viable solution - you are a real PATRIOT!
Thank you all for reading this and for all your dedicated help to keep OUR REPUBLIC.
Some graphics to help understand the Amendments
We must take action to insure the 14th,16th,and 17th Amendments will be repealed. It won't happen overnight but by working together we can make it happen.
It will take the cooperation of concerned groups of people, focused with a single minded purpose, to see the Constitution returned to it's former intent, and again be what the Founders created it to be.
The rub is the how to do it.
It will take the various existing and established grass roots groups, to combine their efforts to accomplish that Repeal Amendment. Without those elements coming together, there will be no amendment, and the progressives will usher in a NWO Socialist America. It will take firm commitment, a lot of work, and a lot of personal time. It won't happen overnight, but if we decide to cooperate and work together , instead of tearing down each others ideas, it will happen. If anyone has a better plan, post it here for discussion.
.
The First Step is; to know what methods are available to create an amendment, or repeal existing amendments, so we have a starting point to go from.
There are four methods of amending the Constitution I know of;
1. Congressional called Article V amendment proposal convention.
2. State petitioned for Article V amendment proposal convention.
3. States Compact
4. Nullification.
As far as I have been able to research, those four are the only legitimate ways to amend the Constitution. If anyone knows of other ways please post them for discussion.
The Second Step is; creating the grass roots combined network structure to accomplish what needs to be done. To do that, it will take people in every group to convince others of their respective groups, combining efforts will make the movement to repeal stronger, and success attainable, to get the repeal amendment passed. Once the network is established, the various Tea Party's and other Conservative Groups, can provide the volunteers needed for the boots on the ground work of contacting State Legislators, and convincing them to take action. Since the various groups are very territorial and clannish, an agreement needs be formed between them to work together for the specific purpose of Amending the Constitution through the Repeal of the 14th,16th,17th, and returning it to it's original intent. Everyone of the groups should be able to agree on that because the result would be in their own groups self interest of getting an intrusive government out of their lives, and setting up the framework for the other issues the groups want to accomplish..If anyone has a more workable solution for step two post it for discussion
The Third Step is; After the infrastructure of the groups is in place, the amendment method/methods which people want to use, would respond to, and would work towards, can be determined by canvassing the groups and setting what is agreed on as the method to be used. Once it is determined which method/methods are going to be used, the real work can begin.This consensus on what to do must be worked out and agreed on by all the groups in advance so there is a focused direction/plan to work for.
Since the people can not petition for an Amendment proposal convention to be called by themselves, the State Legislatures will have to be convinced that it is in their best self interests to petition for one. The groups will have to agree on exactly what they want their States to propose as an amendment and keep it consistent for every State.That too will have to be worked out in advance and agreed on by the groups.
I suggest we keep it simple and propose the repeal of all three amendments 14th,16th,17th with Mangus Colorado's twenty word proposal, and push for that. If anyone has a better solution, post it for discussion.
Step Four is. The execution of the plan where the groups in every State contact their State Legislators with demands those legislators adopt a proposal to Congress with the same exact wording for that specific 20 word amendment of Mangus Colorado's. The proposal is to be sent by the States to Congress requesting Congress immediately send it out to the States immediately for Formal Ratification and that there will be no changes in the language of the proposal if we have 38 states signed on.
Or, lacking the 38 States, a request by the States to Congress for a States petitioned for Article V amendment proposal convention if we only have 34 states signed on. That way Congress can't change anything in the proposal or take control of the convention. We have to get moving on pushing through the Repeal ASAP.
( bear in mind that it will take about 100-200 people in every State to hammer their State Representatives and Senators with phone calls, faxes, letters, and also using their website contact forms to convince them to move on the issue)
If anyone has better ideas or solutions post them here for discussion.
For more detailed information;
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
INSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE ACTION!
STEP BY STEP
1) Read the Article V site information and the 28th amendment.
2) Make sure you understand why all 3 offending Amendments must be repealed [they all work together to limit rights].
3) Make a list of all local council elected officials and contact information.
4) Get the names and addresses of each member of your State legislators including phone numbers.
5) Find the addresses for each of the Party county offices - Democrat and Republican.
6) Download the brochures either color or black and white and ask local printers or copy shops to donate 500 copies.
7) Take or mail the brochures to council meetings and hand them out - ask the council to speak on the issue if you like.
8) Take or mail the brochures to the office of every State Legislator including the governor and other officers.
9) Hand carry a brochure to every local new paper, TV station, and radio station asking them to support the cause.
10) Post a brochure on all public bulletin boards at shores and public buildings.
11) Leave copies in Beauty shops, doctors’ offices, and libraries if they allow.
12) Now start a phone contact program calling a few State legislators each few days until all have been contacted.
13) Ask the local Tea Party, Libertarian group, Party office members to help contact the Legislatures.
14) This project is bipartisan as it involves saving the Republic and giving the power back to the States [closer to us].
15) Now contact all the groups and grassroots supporters and hold local and State Capital Article V demonstrations.
16) Keep emailing to the letters to the editors of the many papers in the nation - if millions email they will take notice.
17) Every letter to the editor gets read by some employee of the publication so keep writing.
18) Attend all party meetings and take handouts - include any town meetings.
19) Post the ArticleVprojecttorestoreliberty.com link in every social media or web site you visit.
20) Hold your head up high as you are now an active part of a viable solution - you are a real PATRIOT!
Thank you all for reading this and for all your dedicated help to keep OUR REPUBLIC.
Some graphics to help understand the Amendments
he latest submission from LadyBoots and the Tradesman 8/2/15
We must do something now or we can lose!
Do you read the last page of a book before you begin the first?
Many do, just to make sure they will be satisfied with the conclusion, make sure that all the conflict in the middle will be worth it in the end, and keep reading after you have opened the cover because you love the beginning?
That's the story I am reading/hoping for America.
I have thrilled at the beginning. Marveled at the building of the plot. Have agonized at the struggles and threats to the entirety. Stand witness to the threats that now face us and shudder at their portent....and as I turn anxious pages toward a conclusion that will absolutely change us no matter the direction that we choose, I offer the sure positive that can save America.
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
We must start a concerted effort to convince out State Legislator's/Representatives that it is in not only in the best interests of themselves and the Nation to have a State Petitioned Article V convention, it is critical for our continued survival as a Republic that it be done post haste.
Look at what the progressive faction has overturned from the original intent of our Founders, with the Obama Administration. Look at how our military has been politicized to conform to Obama and his Puppet Master's agenda. Look at what the Congressional ruling class has done against the wishes of over 75% of the American people.
The Progressives are in full hand-out mode, giving to garner voter support, through policies that we cannot afford to fund, that will in the end leave us in rack and ruin. They advocate through conceived/perceived problems and inequalities. Income Inequality, Housing inequality, Inequality after inequality, but no words are said about equal opportunity; to make it or break it upon the responsibility of the individual does not get the narrative of the collective progressive mantra. Every answer is sourced to the inevitable hand out of taxpayer money, buying Votes they can afford with other people's hard earned money.
All Progressives acceptable solutions are funded with higher taxes, regulated by lots of government interference, controlled by massive government restrictions at the expense of our personal rights. The 'Collective Solution', a socialist tenant, has always been justified for 'the public good'.
Collectively levied down on the heads of the public to I might add, a public conditioned to take it without thinking or reasoning where it all comes from....this government money. Conditioned to demand entitlement, reduced toward neediness and resentment of strength in individuality and self-reliance. They are creating a broken society in desperate need of their superior brand of fixing.
To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example". That is where we sit at this moment in time folks. For way too long the American public has been lulled into believing their government was benevolent. In fact, superior government never is benevolent. 125 years ago it was a properly chained, vicious animal, used like a guard dog it became the tool to protect the public masters. Now the guard is off its leash, even the cage masters better learn to understand, they can be turned upon should the dog no longer find them in favor.
Before we can even attempt to return to the bygone ideology that gave us our Constitution, it behooves us to first understand the nefarious trio of stealth amendments placed within it, that broke the daemons chains. I speak of three Amendments that totally turned the Constitution on it's head and reversed it's power structure. The northern reconstruction its Congress drafted and placed them there and they from their ratification forward, have changed the Governance of America. The 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.
To even attempt to reverse the current onslaught of issues and loss of freedoms poured on our heads, those vile canards must be repealed and voided or we will not have a legal leg to stand on to prevent further assaults on our Freedom and Liberty.
To quote Robert Heinlein;"Democracy-is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy-is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million. Let's play that over again,too. Who decides?" That is one of the things that our Constitution had addressed in it's un-adulterated form before the Progressive/Socialists turned it into the abortion it is today by not enforcing it's requirements and and writing poorly worded Amendments open to interpretation.
The current wording I am totally against in all of our newer laws is the phrase "And for other purposes" That is an anathema to any rational legal restriction and allows for any future interpretation at the whim of whoever is in charge. To me this is the seminal reason that Congress gets away with so much crap besides Public apathy of course..
Wording like that has enabled the Administration and Congress to ride roughshod over any States or Peoples rights that don't fit nicely into their agendas.
Lets take a closer look at Obama's Ready Reserve that some people consider his personal army/Gestapo and at all the dismissals from the various Military branches he has made over his term so far. The trouble with Obama's and the hidden puppet masters ideology is they base their governance of the principle of force rather than voluntary cooperation. That is also evident in the military model that Obama has created.
I cite the recent maneuver called "Jade Helm" I fail to see why the military is rehearsing how to fight urban warfare in the United States with the express stated purpose of counteracting Domestic Terrorism. Either the government is hiding a very serious amount of terrorist infiltration information, or it is something that I personally consider suspect. The general gist of it is to promote a peaceful situation here where it is usually peaceful. I don't think that 'Peace at gunpoint' is nothing more that Imperialism promoted by the Administration. So far the actions taken by the Administration are lauded as proof that their system works to protect Americans when it actually proves the opposite (My Opinion).
Consider the words of Sun Tzu " Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting". To put that in a present day context; The actions of the administration over the last seven years has been one of force and intimidation (citing the Obamacare fiasco using IRS to enforce rules as only one example),The people are rebelling in ever greater numbers regardless what the naysayers and media falsely report. Compare that to the way we were governed in three differing time periods Pre-Antebellum America, Post Antebellum america, and the last hundred years of ever increasing Socialism.
During those periods (first two) mentioned, the idea of a disarmed public was unheard of on an institutionalized Federal Government level although the States and lesser political divisions of states could and did impose some restrictions. Given the fact that power to force issues comes from the military of any country, and the power in society comes from who the military is obeying. The true measure of our lost society is that it has been subverted from one that provided the maximum individual Freedom and Liberty to it's citizens with a mutual trust and voluntary adherence to the rules of society, to one that has become increasingly Intrusive and authoritarian holding the Threat of punitive actions to insure compliance and to increase control over the citizenry.
The control issue is the reason why the current conglomeration of politicians with their self serving agendas can not allow the old ways to reemerge into society without a knock down drag out battle. Their main promises are the provision of many 'Free' things and they can not understand why we would reject their largess that from their way of thinking is extremely generous of them to give.
The Wilson Administration began the concerted onslaught against the old system and it has continued with regular increases until today it has become the strangulation of all competitive business through Taxation and excessive regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and contribute to the loss of living wage jobs. That was the first force applied to change the system politically and economically. Secondly since their shortsightedness caused the loss of many creature comforts they used to keep their controlled population of takers in check are running out because of the loss of makers jobs, the establishment is now trying to make anyone who champions a return to a system that actually worked well as the scapegoats for any and all our domestic problems.
Now we are to the point of having the real possibility of physical Force from the Government to suppress anyone who fights for what is rightfully ours and casting us and the 'Rich' (notice how no mention of the evil rich is made of anyone from their side) as the oppressors and even potential domestic terrorists while not putting down actual riots of their controlled groups. The Power Elite Authoritarian leaders use the simple but workable false axiom that oppression consists of the rich oppressing the middle class, and the middle class oppressing the poor class with the Power Elite cast in the self acclaimed role of the ruling class protecting the little guy from the haves abusing and using the have not's. It's like George Orwell said in the "Animal Farm" 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
The Power Elite Politicians usually are in the top 1 percentile of the rich but their most compelling argument to the poor is "We must tax the rich to give you your fair share" Remember they are not talking about themselves, they are talking about the reasonably well to do and even the remaining middle class as the "Rich" to be taxed into oblivion. It's the same Monarchy/Oligarchy agenda from the beginning of time.
Our Constitution was the beginning of the end of that method of governance until the old guard elite hijacked it and twisted it into a farce of itself that would fool the people into believing they were free and in control until they had no recourse but to accede to the demands and tribulations heaped on them by the Elitist Class of rulers. Today in our two party system with few exceptions the politician/representatives are Millionaires that have inherited their wealth.
The Democrats purport to help the poor downtrodden, and the Republicans purport to help the Middle Class. answer me this; Why are the taxes they enact placed primarily on the Poor and middle class all out of proportion to what the "Rich" are taxed? This system has, is, and always punish everyone except the Elite Power Brokers themselves. They levy taxed on the well to do middle class to give to the poor class and by doing this are punishing everyone who is competent and successful thus loosing jobs that could sustain the poor and middle class without the Elites meddling.With this they foment Class Warfare and that keeps them in power.
The main distinction and outright lie of Socialism is the impossible task of attempting through any illogical means to abolish all classes. The Government then uses military force like they did in every Communist Country to force the remaining independent people to submit.The Elite Power Structure will then set up a system of inflexible rules and regulations with increasingly harsher punishments for non-compliance up to and including Death for opposing the "Benevolent State".That is probably the driving force behind Obama and the rest of the Progressive Socialists infecting the Body Republic. It is my considered opinion that this will be our fate unless we move now to stop it cold.
At this point and with the circumstances as they now are I see an Article V Amendment Proposal Convention petitioned for by the States as the quickest and safest way we can try and turn this situation around on the Progressive/Socialist Faction.
In Conclusion Please let me reiterate;
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
We must do something now or we can lose!
Do you read the last page of a book before you begin the first?
Many do, just to make sure they will be satisfied with the conclusion, make sure that all the conflict in the middle will be worth it in the end, and keep reading after you have opened the cover because you love the beginning?
That's the story I am reading/hoping for America.
I have thrilled at the beginning. Marveled at the building of the plot. Have agonized at the struggles and threats to the entirety. Stand witness to the threats that now face us and shudder at their portent....and as I turn anxious pages toward a conclusion that will absolutely change us no matter the direction that we choose, I offer the sure positive that can save America.
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
We must start a concerted effort to convince out State Legislator's/Representatives that it is in not only in the best interests of themselves and the Nation to have a State Petitioned Article V convention, it is critical for our continued survival as a Republic that it be done post haste.
Look at what the progressive faction has overturned from the original intent of our Founders, with the Obama Administration. Look at how our military has been politicized to conform to Obama and his Puppet Master's agenda. Look at what the Congressional ruling class has done against the wishes of over 75% of the American people.
The Progressives are in full hand-out mode, giving to garner voter support, through policies that we cannot afford to fund, that will in the end leave us in rack and ruin. They advocate through conceived/perceived problems and inequalities. Income Inequality, Housing inequality, Inequality after inequality, but no words are said about equal opportunity; to make it or break it upon the responsibility of the individual does not get the narrative of the collective progressive mantra. Every answer is sourced to the inevitable hand out of taxpayer money, buying Votes they can afford with other people's hard earned money.
All Progressives acceptable solutions are funded with higher taxes, regulated by lots of government interference, controlled by massive government restrictions at the expense of our personal rights. The 'Collective Solution', a socialist tenant, has always been justified for 'the public good'.
Collectively levied down on the heads of the public to I might add, a public conditioned to take it without thinking or reasoning where it all comes from....this government money. Conditioned to demand entitlement, reduced toward neediness and resentment of strength in individuality and self-reliance. They are creating a broken society in desperate need of their superior brand of fixing.
To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example". That is where we sit at this moment in time folks. For way too long the American public has been lulled into believing their government was benevolent. In fact, superior government never is benevolent. 125 years ago it was a properly chained, vicious animal, used like a guard dog it became the tool to protect the public masters. Now the guard is off its leash, even the cage masters better learn to understand, they can be turned upon should the dog no longer find them in favor.
Before we can even attempt to return to the bygone ideology that gave us our Constitution, it behooves us to first understand the nefarious trio of stealth amendments placed within it, that broke the daemons chains. I speak of three Amendments that totally turned the Constitution on it's head and reversed it's power structure. The northern reconstruction its Congress drafted and placed them there and they from their ratification forward, have changed the Governance of America. The 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.
To even attempt to reverse the current onslaught of issues and loss of freedoms poured on our heads, those vile canards must be repealed and voided or we will not have a legal leg to stand on to prevent further assaults on our Freedom and Liberty.
To quote Robert Heinlein;"Democracy-is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy-is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million. Let's play that over again,too. Who decides?" That is one of the things that our Constitution had addressed in it's un-adulterated form before the Progressive/Socialists turned it into the abortion it is today by not enforcing it's requirements and and writing poorly worded Amendments open to interpretation.
The current wording I am totally against in all of our newer laws is the phrase "And for other purposes" That is an anathema to any rational legal restriction and allows for any future interpretation at the whim of whoever is in charge. To me this is the seminal reason that Congress gets away with so much crap besides Public apathy of course..
Wording like that has enabled the Administration and Congress to ride roughshod over any States or Peoples rights that don't fit nicely into their agendas.
Lets take a closer look at Obama's Ready Reserve that some people consider his personal army/Gestapo and at all the dismissals from the various Military branches he has made over his term so far. The trouble with Obama's and the hidden puppet masters ideology is they base their governance of the principle of force rather than voluntary cooperation. That is also evident in the military model that Obama has created.
I cite the recent maneuver called "Jade Helm" I fail to see why the military is rehearsing how to fight urban warfare in the United States with the express stated purpose of counteracting Domestic Terrorism. Either the government is hiding a very serious amount of terrorist infiltration information, or it is something that I personally consider suspect. The general gist of it is to promote a peaceful situation here where it is usually peaceful. I don't think that 'Peace at gunpoint' is nothing more that Imperialism promoted by the Administration. So far the actions taken by the Administration are lauded as proof that their system works to protect Americans when it actually proves the opposite (My Opinion).
Consider the words of Sun Tzu " Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting". To put that in a present day context; The actions of the administration over the last seven years has been one of force and intimidation (citing the Obamacare fiasco using IRS to enforce rules as only one example),The people are rebelling in ever greater numbers regardless what the naysayers and media falsely report. Compare that to the way we were governed in three differing time periods Pre-Antebellum America, Post Antebellum america, and the last hundred years of ever increasing Socialism.
During those periods (first two) mentioned, the idea of a disarmed public was unheard of on an institutionalized Federal Government level although the States and lesser political divisions of states could and did impose some restrictions. Given the fact that power to force issues comes from the military of any country, and the power in society comes from who the military is obeying. The true measure of our lost society is that it has been subverted from one that provided the maximum individual Freedom and Liberty to it's citizens with a mutual trust and voluntary adherence to the rules of society, to one that has become increasingly Intrusive and authoritarian holding the Threat of punitive actions to insure compliance and to increase control over the citizenry.
The control issue is the reason why the current conglomeration of politicians with their self serving agendas can not allow the old ways to reemerge into society without a knock down drag out battle. Their main promises are the provision of many 'Free' things and they can not understand why we would reject their largess that from their way of thinking is extremely generous of them to give.
The Wilson Administration began the concerted onslaught against the old system and it has continued with regular increases until today it has become the strangulation of all competitive business through Taxation and excessive regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and contribute to the loss of living wage jobs. That was the first force applied to change the system politically and economically. Secondly since their shortsightedness caused the loss of many creature comforts they used to keep their controlled population of takers in check are running out because of the loss of makers jobs, the establishment is now trying to make anyone who champions a return to a system that actually worked well as the scapegoats for any and all our domestic problems.
Now we are to the point of having the real possibility of physical Force from the Government to suppress anyone who fights for what is rightfully ours and casting us and the 'Rich' (notice how no mention of the evil rich is made of anyone from their side) as the oppressors and even potential domestic terrorists while not putting down actual riots of their controlled groups. The Power Elite Authoritarian leaders use the simple but workable false axiom that oppression consists of the rich oppressing the middle class, and the middle class oppressing the poor class with the Power Elite cast in the self acclaimed role of the ruling class protecting the little guy from the haves abusing and using the have not's. It's like George Orwell said in the "Animal Farm" 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
The Power Elite Politicians usually are in the top 1 percentile of the rich but their most compelling argument to the poor is "We must tax the rich to give you your fair share" Remember they are not talking about themselves, they are talking about the reasonably well to do and even the remaining middle class as the "Rich" to be taxed into oblivion. It's the same Monarchy/Oligarchy agenda from the beginning of time.
Our Constitution was the beginning of the end of that method of governance until the old guard elite hijacked it and twisted it into a farce of itself that would fool the people into believing they were free and in control until they had no recourse but to accede to the demands and tribulations heaped on them by the Elitist Class of rulers. Today in our two party system with few exceptions the politician/representatives are Millionaires that have inherited their wealth.
The Democrats purport to help the poor downtrodden, and the Republicans purport to help the Middle Class. answer me this; Why are the taxes they enact placed primarily on the Poor and middle class all out of proportion to what the "Rich" are taxed? This system has, is, and always punish everyone except the Elite Power Brokers themselves. They levy taxed on the well to do middle class to give to the poor class and by doing this are punishing everyone who is competent and successful thus loosing jobs that could sustain the poor and middle class without the Elites meddling.With this they foment Class Warfare and that keeps them in power.
The main distinction and outright lie of Socialism is the impossible task of attempting through any illogical means to abolish all classes. The Government then uses military force like they did in every Communist Country to force the remaining independent people to submit.The Elite Power Structure will then set up a system of inflexible rules and regulations with increasingly harsher punishments for non-compliance up to and including Death for opposing the "Benevolent State".That is probably the driving force behind Obama and the rest of the Progressive Socialists infecting the Body Republic. It is my considered opinion that this will be our fate unless we move now to stop it cold.
At this point and with the circumstances as they now are I see an Article V Amendment Proposal Convention petitioned for by the States as the quickest and safest way we can try and turn this situation around on the Progressive/Socialist Faction.
In Conclusion Please let me reiterate;
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
NC Private School Vouchers Upheld in State Supreme Court
Public News Service - NC | July 2015 -
24, 2015RALEIGH, N.C. - Public money can continue to be used for vouchers to pay for private schools, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The program was challenged by public-school advocates who argued it was unconstitutional and removes needed resources from public schools. Yevonne Brannon, who chairs Public Schools First North Carolina, said she is disheartened by the ruling. "Public schools in North Carolina will never, ever be the same," she said. "When I finished reading the ruling at the very last page, all I could think about was God help us, because we're going to be in a mess. We're going to tear apart our solid foundation for public schools." This year, more than 5,000 applications for the vouchers have been submitted. Supporters of the voucher program, put in place in 2013, say it empowers low-income parents to afford a private education for their child. The program offers vouchers of up to $4,200 in this coming academic year. To be eligible, a family of four would have to make no more than $59,000 annually. Brannon said private schools are not held to the same education standards as are public schools, and insisted that the practice violates the state Constitution. "Our Constitution, I believe, does not allow for using public funds for private purposes," she said. According to the National Education Association, a compilation of research indicates that vouchers do not significantly expand choices for parents. Indiana has a similar voucher program in place and, according to Brannon, pays $116 million to send 29,000 students to private and religious schools. The full court decision is online at appellate.nccourts.org. The NEA research is atnea.org. Stephanie Carson, Public News Service - NC - See more at:http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-07-24/education/nc-private-sc...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:21 PM, lock piatt <lockpiatt@gmail.com> wrote:
State National Bank v. Lew
DC Circuit Court Opinion
July 24, 2015
View the decision here
Today, the D.C. Circuit Court handed down a favorable ruling in CEI’s case challenging the constitutionality of key provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas et al. v. Lew et al. A courageous, small Texas bank, the 60 Plus Association, and 11 states join CEI in this lawsuit seeking to invalidate major elements of the law because of the unprecedented, unchecked power it gives to agencies created by Dodd-Frank, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
To learn more about this case visit cei.org/doddfrank.
Statement by Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel:
“The DC Circuit’s ruling today opens the door to a court test of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s constitutionality. Since Dodd-Frank’s enactment five years ago this month, the CFPB has inflicted damage on huge segments of our economy. Its powers are so free-roaming that they are unprecedented in our history. The fact that our standing to challenge the CFPB has been upheld is great news for us, the plaintiffs, and even greater news for the American public.”
Statement by Jim Purcell, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, which is the lead plaintiff in the case.
“As a small community bank out in West Texas, we’ve always felt pretty vulnerable to the regulatory burdens imposed on us by Washington, D.C. In recent years, that threat was epitomized for us by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency which was alarmingly free of traditional checks and balances. We never quite understood why the Bureau objected to having its constitutionality tested in court. On behalf of the bank, its customers, and the American public, we’re extremely gratified that we’ll now have the chance to put this agency to that test.”
Legal filings:
June 21, 2012 - Original Complaint
Read more at CEI https://cei.org/content/state-national-bank-v-lew
############################################################################################
State National Bank v. Lew
DC Circuit Court Opinion
July 24, 2015
View the decision here
Today, the D.C. Circuit Court handed down a favorable ruling in CEI’s case challenging the constitutionality of key provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas et al. v. Lew et al. A courageous, small Texas bank, the 60 Plus Association, and 11 states join CEI in this lawsuit seeking to invalidate major elements of the law because of the unprecedented, unchecked power it gives to agencies created by Dodd-Frank, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
To learn more about this case visit cei.org/doddfrank.
Statement by Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel:
“The DC Circuit’s ruling today opens the door to a court test of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s constitutionality. Since Dodd-Frank’s enactment five years ago this month, the CFPB has inflicted damage on huge segments of our economy. Its powers are so free-roaming that they are unprecedented in our history. The fact that our standing to challenge the CFPB has been upheld is great news for us, the plaintiffs, and even greater news for the American public.”
Statement by Jim Purcell, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, which is the lead plaintiff in the case.
“As a small community bank out in West Texas, we’ve always felt pretty vulnerable to the regulatory burdens imposed on us by Washington, D.C. In recent years, that threat was epitomized for us by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency which was alarmingly free of traditional checks and balances. We never quite understood why the Bureau objected to having its constitutionality tested in court. On behalf of the bank, its customers, and the American public, we’re extremely gratified that we’ll now have the chance to put this agency to that test.”
Legal filings:
June 21, 2012 - Original Complaint
Read more at CEI https://cei.org/content/state-national-bank-v-lew
Public News Service - NC | July 2015 -
24, 2015RALEIGH, N.C. - Public money can continue to be used for vouchers to pay for private schools, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The program was challenged by public-school advocates who argued it was unconstitutional and removes needed resources from public schools. Yevonne Brannon, who chairs Public Schools First North Carolina, said she is disheartened by the ruling. "Public schools in North Carolina will never, ever be the same," she said. "When I finished reading the ruling at the very last page, all I could think about was God help us, because we're going to be in a mess. We're going to tear apart our solid foundation for public schools." This year, more than 5,000 applications for the vouchers have been submitted. Supporters of the voucher program, put in place in 2013, say it empowers low-income parents to afford a private education for their child. The program offers vouchers of up to $4,200 in this coming academic year. To be eligible, a family of four would have to make no more than $59,000 annually. Brannon said private schools are not held to the same education standards as are public schools, and insisted that the practice violates the state Constitution. "Our Constitution, I believe, does not allow for using public funds for private purposes," she said. According to the National Education Association, a compilation of research indicates that vouchers do not significantly expand choices for parents. Indiana has a similar voucher program in place and, according to Brannon, pays $116 million to send 29,000 students to private and religious schools. The full court decision is online at appellate.nccourts.org. The NEA research is atnea.org. Stephanie Carson, Public News Service - NC - See more at:http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-07-24/education/nc-private-sc...
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 1:21 PM, lock piatt <lockpiatt@gmail.com> wrote:
State National Bank v. Lew
DC Circuit Court Opinion
July 24, 2015
View the decision here
Today, the D.C. Circuit Court handed down a favorable ruling in CEI’s case challenging the constitutionality of key provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas et al. v. Lew et al. A courageous, small Texas bank, the 60 Plus Association, and 11 states join CEI in this lawsuit seeking to invalidate major elements of the law because of the unprecedented, unchecked power it gives to agencies created by Dodd-Frank, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
To learn more about this case visit cei.org/doddfrank.
Statement by Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel:
“The DC Circuit’s ruling today opens the door to a court test of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s constitutionality. Since Dodd-Frank’s enactment five years ago this month, the CFPB has inflicted damage on huge segments of our economy. Its powers are so free-roaming that they are unprecedented in our history. The fact that our standing to challenge the CFPB has been upheld is great news for us, the plaintiffs, and even greater news for the American public.”
Statement by Jim Purcell, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, which is the lead plaintiff in the case.
“As a small community bank out in West Texas, we’ve always felt pretty vulnerable to the regulatory burdens imposed on us by Washington, D.C. In recent years, that threat was epitomized for us by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency which was alarmingly free of traditional checks and balances. We never quite understood why the Bureau objected to having its constitutionality tested in court. On behalf of the bank, its customers, and the American public, we’re extremely gratified that we’ll now have the chance to put this agency to that test.”
Legal filings:
June 21, 2012 - Original Complaint
Read more at CEI https://cei.org/content/state-national-bank-v-lew
############################################################################################
State National Bank v. Lew
DC Circuit Court Opinion
July 24, 2015
View the decision here
Today, the D.C. Circuit Court handed down a favorable ruling in CEI’s case challenging the constitutionality of key provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas et al. v. Lew et al. A courageous, small Texas bank, the 60 Plus Association, and 11 states join CEI in this lawsuit seeking to invalidate major elements of the law because of the unprecedented, unchecked power it gives to agencies created by Dodd-Frank, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
To learn more about this case visit cei.org/doddfrank.
Statement by Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel:
“The DC Circuit’s ruling today opens the door to a court test of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s constitutionality. Since Dodd-Frank’s enactment five years ago this month, the CFPB has inflicted damage on huge segments of our economy. Its powers are so free-roaming that they are unprecedented in our history. The fact that our standing to challenge the CFPB has been upheld is great news for us, the plaintiffs, and even greater news for the American public.”
Statement by Jim Purcell, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, which is the lead plaintiff in the case.
“As a small community bank out in West Texas, we’ve always felt pretty vulnerable to the regulatory burdens imposed on us by Washington, D.C. In recent years, that threat was epitomized for us by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency which was alarmingly free of traditional checks and balances. We never quite understood why the Bureau objected to having its constitutionality tested in court. On behalf of the bank, its customers, and the American public, we’re extremely gratified that we’ll now have the chance to put this agency to that test.”
Legal filings:
June 21, 2012 - Original Complaint
Read more at CEI https://cei.org/content/state-national-bank-v-lew
Why Won't Obama Give Troops Means To Defend Themselves?
By: An Anonymous Patriot;
It seems that our President does not actually believe our Military Personnel should have the means to defend themselves either on bases or in Recruiting centers. Maybe this stems from his alleged fears that the Military will act to remove him for the cause of breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies. that is what the Military is known for, and they will protect us from all our enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC. Why hasn't Congress acted to rectify the situation? God Bless the State Governors that have! Could this be why Clinton originally disarmed Military personnel on american soil and that was kept in force by Bush and now Obama? Maybe it is, and Maybe it isn't. Time will tell. But until that time........
This is a good idea unless Obama has some objections to us protecting our military for a change!
It seems that our President does not actually believe our Military Personnel should have the means to defend themselves either on bases or in Recruiting centers. Maybe this stems from his alleged fears that the Military will act to remove him for the cause of breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies. that is what the Military is known for, and they will protect us from all our enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC. Why hasn't Congress acted to rectify the situation? God Bless the State Governors that have! Could this be why Clinton originally disarmed Military personnel on american soil and that was kept in force by Bush and now Obama? Maybe it is, and Maybe it isn't. Time will tell. But until that time........
This is a good idea unless Obama has some objections to us protecting our military for a change!
It's Our Society, and It's Our Problems To Correct!(posted 7/3/15)
There is a certain belief that society consists of a group of people that have the same concepts and are united by them to the point of unofficial delusion. Example; Take the myth of George Washington and the Cherry Tree. While it is a good morality instruction for the young, it was also a shared commonality in our society. No adult actually believed it, but it was a comfortable fiction that hurt no one. The takeover Elites have changed that and almost all of our traditions,presenting them as Naivete that needs to be ridiculed and removed by a civilized people, and supplanting their Lies and Spin in place of traditional morality fictions. This started our subsequent downfall to the conditions we are experiencing today..
Truthfully, a Community ranging from individual small groups, up to a fully populated Nation, is usually a consensus of shared opinions, mutual understanding of moral principles, and the mutually agreed on actions within it, which are acceptable. and those actions which are not acceptable. In short; 'The difference between what is morally Right and Wrong'. Basically it is a dynamic process that can go wrong unless there are some codified rules and regulations the populace agree to voluntarily accept and conform to. The Government leaders must also conform to the codified structure or everything collapses. The stress is and MUST REMAIN AS; 'Voluntarily' for the People, and as 'Mandatory' for the Elected Officials..
The thing that most often happens is when the concept of what is right is twisted by a sub group within the societal grouping to make the perception of; Right 'Wrong', and Wrong 'Right' to increase their chances of personal gain and power. It is currently alarmingly clear that is what is happening across America, and across the World today. The symptoms are clear and defined. They include a welfare class that can be used and directed by utilizing the disparities between their un-earned lifestyles, and the productive peoples earned lifestyles. The twist comes in with the welfare group being told that the situation is unfair and the productive group is morally obligated to ease their circumstances by taking care of them. Heaven forbid the welfare group should get the necessary training and education to strike out on their own and become a member of the productive class.
The Elitists for lack of a more descriptive name also work against the productive class by creating an 'Immoral Cadre' of political leaders and biased cabals that attempt to control all the business and productivity, so they may reap most of the rewards for themselves. How many times have you heard or seen someone that has made millions from using the system and then condemning it as immoral and biased against the "Poor"? These same people advocate publicly and emotionally the Productive Class, and the Rich Class ( that is not yet a part of their group ), should be held in contempt and stripped of their earned wealth to compensate for some contrived inequality the poor have not even been given a chance to work for by the self same Elitist controlled group, or an individual sanctioned and trained in agitator methods promoting the agendas of the group who is making those noises.
The Elites have perfected the art of misdirection and spun rhetoric so thoroughly that the poor and welfare class of people who have been suppressed by those Elites, actually believe the lies and spin are gospel truths, hook line and sinker. This is one of the main reasons why our society has become so warped. If it continues on like this it will be destroyed through the methods the hidden ruling group has set their political conscripts to accomplish in coordination with each other, according to the overall plan the Elites are using for their takeover.
The Elites don't believe in human rights, unless it's their personal assumed rights that are being cited. For us 'lesser beings' in their world view lexicon, they don't believe there's any thing like a 'God Given Human Right'. Know this, A Right is self evident and cannot be removed. It is also self evident that rights have responsibilities connected to them. The Elites have treated the Welfare poor with a twisted concept of rights that they have rights to almost anything that is made or owned by the producer class but they don't have any responsibilities attached to those rights. This fallacy stems from the Progressive lies and spin that say rights only come from the beneficent Government and then, only if the recipients are willing to march in lockstep with the wishes of the Overlord class that controls them.
The question that confronts us right now is; What Are We Going To Do To reverse The Situation? We know what has led up to this point,and we know where it will continue on to if not stopped. So, how do we stop it? Better yet, How Do We Get The Diverse Population To Unite Against The Opposition, and Remain Legal and Non-Violent While doing so? We can not afford to ignite violent acts, or use illegal means to our ends, or we become transgressors. Doing so would only bring down the unrelenting wrath of the hidden Overlords through their political toadies and their controlled enforcement agents .
Therefore, the first thing we have to do is to educate the vast numbers of people who are of a conservative bent with the truth about what has been done to change America over the last hundred years. Then encourage them to deprogram the propagandized and highly biased education their children are getting in public schools. The next thing is to start a counter campaign against the Political Correctness attack on our sensibilities that explains why and how it's being used against American Values and morals.. We can attack that by using logical arguments that are self evident to oppose most of their stylized pernicious rhetoric. Don't forget, the Political Correctness Rhetoric uses a twisted form of our own morality and compassion, and it skews our innate desire to do the right and honorable moral things, by subverting it to the Progressive flavor of the month political agenda. Keep arguments short and to the point. Do not allow them to control the dialogue. Use their techniques against them, those techniques actually work.
In conclusion;
The best way to make the necessary inroads to their power and control structure is to attack it intellectually on the Political Correctness front by exposing it's innate twisting and manipulation of our basic beliefs and values with the truth. Fight for the Constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights on all forms of speech, not only on the socially acceptable ones the progressive socialists spout as the only correct ones. i.e. Political Opinionated speech that opposes the ones in power's agendas, and the harsh or nasty speech that insults are the types of speech that needs the protection.
Secondly we need to attack the stolen powers that were never intended to be powers of the central government and return them to the states and to the people. Doing that would entail overturning by repeal the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments by way of a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Convention. We could also address the excesses the Government Leaders have done to weaken America through Treaty and ignoring the Constitutionally enumerated powers. for example, we could propose a Balanced Budget Amendment with penalties for the politicians up to and including the President, Supreme Court,and members of Congress. We could also propose an amendment that sets a simple guideline to stop Federal Justices including the supreme Court from in effect legislating from the bench.
For those who are afraid of the Constitution being gutted or the convention being hi-jacked by special interest groups because of the inane rhetoric of the mouthpieces for the ones who would lose power remember that citing what happened when the Constitution was created out of a convention to fix the Articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual union of the United States remember they refuse to state that original confederation document had no means within it to make any changes to the body of it. The Constitution however has the means to change it without changing the body of itself, and the Founders trusted the people more than they trusted the continued veracity of the Federal Government.
Therefore;
The best and only Constitutional way to accomplish what needs be accomplished, is to build up and focus the movement around the concept of restoring the Republic through the auspices of an Article V Convention Of States. It's not too late. Many will out of fear or self interest, will counsel against it. I can't accept their baseless fears, nor can I countenance the Self Serving Interests of those who would lose power from it. Enforcing the Article V provision by the States will give us the necessary basis in Constitutional Law. Once the corrections to the 100 years of Progressive amendments are incorporated through enactment or repeal of certain ones, the Supreme Court will have to agree with us when we rein in the out of control, overblown and overreaching federal government's stolen power, and return it to the States and to the People.
A parting thought;
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal agreed on by the delegates at an article V convention would make damn sure the States should/would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments along with other desirable changes. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
There is a certain belief that society consists of a group of people that have the same concepts and are united by them to the point of unofficial delusion. Example; Take the myth of George Washington and the Cherry Tree. While it is a good morality instruction for the young, it was also a shared commonality in our society. No adult actually believed it, but it was a comfortable fiction that hurt no one. The takeover Elites have changed that and almost all of our traditions,presenting them as Naivete that needs to be ridiculed and removed by a civilized people, and supplanting their Lies and Spin in place of traditional morality fictions. This started our subsequent downfall to the conditions we are experiencing today..
Truthfully, a Community ranging from individual small groups, up to a fully populated Nation, is usually a consensus of shared opinions, mutual understanding of moral principles, and the mutually agreed on actions within it, which are acceptable. and those actions which are not acceptable. In short; 'The difference between what is morally Right and Wrong'. Basically it is a dynamic process that can go wrong unless there are some codified rules and regulations the populace agree to voluntarily accept and conform to. The Government leaders must also conform to the codified structure or everything collapses. The stress is and MUST REMAIN AS; 'Voluntarily' for the People, and as 'Mandatory' for the Elected Officials..
The thing that most often happens is when the concept of what is right is twisted by a sub group within the societal grouping to make the perception of; Right 'Wrong', and Wrong 'Right' to increase their chances of personal gain and power. It is currently alarmingly clear that is what is happening across America, and across the World today. The symptoms are clear and defined. They include a welfare class that can be used and directed by utilizing the disparities between their un-earned lifestyles, and the productive peoples earned lifestyles. The twist comes in with the welfare group being told that the situation is unfair and the productive group is morally obligated to ease their circumstances by taking care of them. Heaven forbid the welfare group should get the necessary training and education to strike out on their own and become a member of the productive class.
The Elitists for lack of a more descriptive name also work against the productive class by creating an 'Immoral Cadre' of political leaders and biased cabals that attempt to control all the business and productivity, so they may reap most of the rewards for themselves. How many times have you heard or seen someone that has made millions from using the system and then condemning it as immoral and biased against the "Poor"? These same people advocate publicly and emotionally the Productive Class, and the Rich Class ( that is not yet a part of their group ), should be held in contempt and stripped of their earned wealth to compensate for some contrived inequality the poor have not even been given a chance to work for by the self same Elitist controlled group, or an individual sanctioned and trained in agitator methods promoting the agendas of the group who is making those noises.
The Elites have perfected the art of misdirection and spun rhetoric so thoroughly that the poor and welfare class of people who have been suppressed by those Elites, actually believe the lies and spin are gospel truths, hook line and sinker. This is one of the main reasons why our society has become so warped. If it continues on like this it will be destroyed through the methods the hidden ruling group has set their political conscripts to accomplish in coordination with each other, according to the overall plan the Elites are using for their takeover.
The Elites don't believe in human rights, unless it's their personal assumed rights that are being cited. For us 'lesser beings' in their world view lexicon, they don't believe there's any thing like a 'God Given Human Right'. Know this, A Right is self evident and cannot be removed. It is also self evident that rights have responsibilities connected to them. The Elites have treated the Welfare poor with a twisted concept of rights that they have rights to almost anything that is made or owned by the producer class but they don't have any responsibilities attached to those rights. This fallacy stems from the Progressive lies and spin that say rights only come from the beneficent Government and then, only if the recipients are willing to march in lockstep with the wishes of the Overlord class that controls them.
The question that confronts us right now is; What Are We Going To Do To reverse The Situation? We know what has led up to this point,and we know where it will continue on to if not stopped. So, how do we stop it? Better yet, How Do We Get The Diverse Population To Unite Against The Opposition, and Remain Legal and Non-Violent While doing so? We can not afford to ignite violent acts, or use illegal means to our ends, or we become transgressors. Doing so would only bring down the unrelenting wrath of the hidden Overlords through their political toadies and their controlled enforcement agents .
Therefore, the first thing we have to do is to educate the vast numbers of people who are of a conservative bent with the truth about what has been done to change America over the last hundred years. Then encourage them to deprogram the propagandized and highly biased education their children are getting in public schools. The next thing is to start a counter campaign against the Political Correctness attack on our sensibilities that explains why and how it's being used against American Values and morals.. We can attack that by using logical arguments that are self evident to oppose most of their stylized pernicious rhetoric. Don't forget, the Political Correctness Rhetoric uses a twisted form of our own morality and compassion, and it skews our innate desire to do the right and honorable moral things, by subverting it to the Progressive flavor of the month political agenda. Keep arguments short and to the point. Do not allow them to control the dialogue. Use their techniques against them, those techniques actually work.
In conclusion;
The best way to make the necessary inroads to their power and control structure is to attack it intellectually on the Political Correctness front by exposing it's innate twisting and manipulation of our basic beliefs and values with the truth. Fight for the Constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights on all forms of speech, not only on the socially acceptable ones the progressive socialists spout as the only correct ones. i.e. Political Opinionated speech that opposes the ones in power's agendas, and the harsh or nasty speech that insults are the types of speech that needs the protection.
Secondly we need to attack the stolen powers that were never intended to be powers of the central government and return them to the states and to the people. Doing that would entail overturning by repeal the 14th,16th and 17th Amendments by way of a States petitioned for Article V Amendment Convention. We could also address the excesses the Government Leaders have done to weaken America through Treaty and ignoring the Constitutionally enumerated powers. for example, we could propose a Balanced Budget Amendment with penalties for the politicians up to and including the President, Supreme Court,and members of Congress. We could also propose an amendment that sets a simple guideline to stop Federal Justices including the supreme Court from in effect legislating from the bench.
For those who are afraid of the Constitution being gutted or the convention being hi-jacked by special interest groups because of the inane rhetoric of the mouthpieces for the ones who would lose power remember that citing what happened when the Constitution was created out of a convention to fix the Articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual union of the United States remember they refuse to state that original confederation document had no means within it to make any changes to the body of it. The Constitution however has the means to change it without changing the body of itself, and the Founders trusted the people more than they trusted the continued veracity of the Federal Government.
Therefore;
The best and only Constitutional way to accomplish what needs be accomplished, is to build up and focus the movement around the concept of restoring the Republic through the auspices of an Article V Convention Of States. It's not too late. Many will out of fear or self interest, will counsel against it. I can't accept their baseless fears, nor can I countenance the Self Serving Interests of those who would lose power from it. Enforcing the Article V provision by the States will give us the necessary basis in Constitutional Law. Once the corrections to the 100 years of Progressive amendments are incorporated through enactment or repeal of certain ones, the Supreme Court will have to agree with us when we rein in the out of control, overblown and overreaching federal government's stolen power, and return it to the States and to the People.
A parting thought;
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal agreed on by the delegates at an article V convention would make damn sure the States should/would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments along with other desirable changes. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
EULOGY
With heavy Heart I must Advise our Readers of The Death Of A True Patriot; Alan CarubaAlan Caruba was an example of the fundamental Patriotic American. He lived it and everything he wrote shows that he had a deep abiding love for America and what she stood for.He like Reagan believed that Freedom and Liberty needed to be passed down to our children with the truth outweighing the Political correctness line of bull the Progressives were trying to shove down America's throat.His razor edged insights and writing style will be sorely missed.
Goodbye Faithful Friend and Patriot,
the Tradesman
> True Patriots with the wisdom, memory, who have the perspective to still understand what a constitutional republic is supposed to look like under balanced and co-equal national branches of government that respect the sovereignty of it's citizens and every State in our union...are disappearing.What fate will our country face when the patriots of such stature, with their knowledge to help us right our feet again on the path of righteous government are all gone?
Lady Boots
>"Alan Caruba, know this from where ever you are now, your writings and insights will be sorely missed."
So Say We Individually, and So Say We All!;
Lady Boots Bob Webster Jim Coles
Mangus Colorado Coach Middle Aged Man
Wild Vortex Gene Daily Mountain Man
Mimi Joy Initiator Ron Ewart
Andrew Benjamin Walter Williams Ron Neilson
Lawman Fellow Citizen Wise Old Owl
Tradesman Gunny McClain Love of Country
It is with a heavy heart that we who strive to be such as that, must count ourselves one less.The day sadly has come when his body no longer exists, but his legacy of promoting Liberty and Freedom in his writings will live on. We here at the Article V site will reprint the articles he has given his prior permission to reprint.
Ed.Note: The Following Graphic Sums Up Alan Caruba!
Goodbye Faithful Friend and Patriot,
the Tradesman
> True Patriots with the wisdom, memory, who have the perspective to still understand what a constitutional republic is supposed to look like under balanced and co-equal national branches of government that respect the sovereignty of it's citizens and every State in our union...are disappearing.What fate will our country face when the patriots of such stature, with their knowledge to help us right our feet again on the path of righteous government are all gone?
Lady Boots
>"Alan Caruba, know this from where ever you are now, your writings and insights will be sorely missed."
So Say We Individually, and So Say We All!;
Lady Boots Bob Webster Jim Coles
Mangus Colorado Coach Middle Aged Man
Wild Vortex Gene Daily Mountain Man
Mimi Joy Initiator Ron Ewart
Andrew Benjamin Walter Williams Ron Neilson
Lawman Fellow Citizen Wise Old Owl
Tradesman Gunny McClain Love of Country
It is with a heavy heart that we who strive to be such as that, must count ourselves one less.The day sadly has come when his body no longer exists, but his legacy of promoting Liberty and Freedom in his writings will live on. We here at the Article V site will reprint the articles he has given his prior permission to reprint.
Ed.Note: The Following Graphic Sums Up Alan Caruba!
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Wouldn't our Founders be Proud of us?
Our Founding Fathers Must be turning over in their graves for what we have allowed to happen to the Republic they forged when they pledged their Lives,Fortunes,and Sacred Honor to establish.
They knew that reconciliation was not then to be had from a Tyrant, as it is now not to be had from an overreaching and borderline governmental Tyranny.
They knew that reconciliation was not then to be had from a Tyrant, as it is now not to be had from an overreaching and borderline governmental Tyranny.
Our Founding Fathers had these things to say
The charges they levied against the King of England (In Parenthesis) then, are strikingly familiar to what we are experiencing from our three branches of Government today. Let us take the charges they levied against King George, and compare them to what conservative Americans charge the Obama Administration and his acting bureaucracies with today;
" He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
Hasn't Obama ignored enforcing some laws? Hasn't Obama Ignored Constitutional Law when he oversteps his enumerated powers and legislates from the Oval office by changing enacted laws, issuing executive orders, confiscating lands from the States supposedly to create National Monuments over the objections of the people and using other agencies of the Federal Government to enforce his actions?
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
Hasn't Obama ignored Congress and the People and issued executive orders concerning Illegal Immigrants?
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
Hasn't Obama stripped the Military leadership dedicated to preserving the Constitution and replaced them with his handpicked people? What about the Ready Reserve force he initiated to be just as fully trained and equipped as our military?
" He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: "
Hasn't he initiated or approved several treaties like the UN Gun Ban treaty, Trans Pacific Partnership, Trans Atlantic Partnership?
In simple fact, most of what the colonists charged King George with over two centuries ago, can be readily applied to Obama, his complicit Congresses, and the institutions he as chief Executive controls; i.e. the IRS,CIA,NSA, EPA to name a few, but the list goes ever on.
Just what the hell, is going on in America today? What happened to the undaunted American Spirit? All I can see is miserable, cowering, and/or brainwashed people who have forgotten their heritage!! I don't deny that Americans have been under the onslaught of negative propaganda from the growing progressive voice in our county based on the political philosophy of the Socialist Left. Theirs is a narrative that has grown ever stronger for DECADES. This coalition is the bane of the Spirit of Freedom and Liberty.
Ever since the Colonial Patriots, with the help of the French created the American Experiment of self-rule, the Antiquated Old School 'Ruling Class' has been desperate to curtail any further inroads to diminish what they themselves consider as a God Given Right. The superior right for the privileged to abuse all who they deem are not within their own 'Clique.' We do not need them to make our decisions for us. We do not need for them to establish the definition of worth or chose our direction of movement. What we need now is, for The People themselves to start learning and thinking for themselves. People who want to act, assume and become responsible for their own self-determination. If we abdicate that, we hand them our liberty.
When the self-styled Ruling Elites consider themselves as a separate and more highly esteemed entity from the rest of their fellow citizenry the trouble begins. It is only when the Leaders have similar concerns as the vast Majority of the Public, they share the same vision and goals, and they are held to the same standards that government works very well.
It is dangerous for leaders to hold themselves separate from the society that they are elected to serve; Physically, in a city but operating in a vacuum. Socially, where they mingle with influence peddlers, and Emotionally, where they share little of the burden of their policy decisions, they usually create policies that they little understand or relate to as they levy them.
History has taught us that this will manifest itself first and clearest in the venue of Criminal Justice. When the Ruling Elite create a system where the privileged of their class are held to a different standard of responsibility and accountability to the Law than the so-called average person, everything begins to break down...a spiral eventually leading to Anarchy. First manifestations example themselves when Government officials exempt themselves from the laws and regulations that they make. Sounds very much like what Congress did with Obamacare does it not?
Such burdensome political dramas tire and numb a society quickly. People strive for positive or quick distraction from the comprehensive and pervasive oppression of feeling and law. The moderately financially secure young are easily manipulated into concentrating on hedonistic activities, living for the moment, immature and self-indulgent, their lives have not yet necessitated them thinking about the future. The youth of the lower financial opportunity are made poorer and the messages of disproportionate circumstances create envy and breed mistrust. Enter into this dynamic those who would further divide us who take advantage of all issues, tragedy and current events to put a label and a color on it. They interject hatred as match to override tinder. Many pretend to be help. Many offer manifold programs that they provide, not as a hand up but as a handout to a mouth that soon forgets or desires to feed itself. This has spawned generations of families dependent on a welfare state. A welfare state that will continue to empower the cycle they cannot or will not break.
Strange as it might seem, those who have enjoyed decades of power in our country, have actually programmed our society to be accepting of the agenda they work as puppet-masters to perform and orchestrate. They fear the potential threat of a young, strong, unified, and educated generation being able to contest their rule.
The Progressive elite only want sheeple grazing in their pastures, the slaves and the needy of a general population so they can mold them and direct them to work to make them wealthier, work to support the state programs through taxes, and perpetuate envy from the poor who take from the coffers the workers fill. Who remains untouched in to scenario, who gains?
'A House divided cannot stand' Lincoln said that.A house so over-burdened with its foundation continually eroded away cannot stand either.
How long can America stand if this continues?
Do you believe that America still has a future as a Free People?
In Conclusion;
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
The Tradesman & Ladyboots
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
" He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
Hasn't Obama ignored enforcing some laws? Hasn't Obama Ignored Constitutional Law when he oversteps his enumerated powers and legislates from the Oval office by changing enacted laws, issuing executive orders, confiscating lands from the States supposedly to create National Monuments over the objections of the people and using other agencies of the Federal Government to enforce his actions?
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
Hasn't Obama ignored Congress and the People and issued executive orders concerning Illegal Immigrants?
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
Hasn't Obama stripped the Military leadership dedicated to preserving the Constitution and replaced them with his handpicked people? What about the Ready Reserve force he initiated to be just as fully trained and equipped as our military?
" He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: "
Hasn't he initiated or approved several treaties like the UN Gun Ban treaty, Trans Pacific Partnership, Trans Atlantic Partnership?
In simple fact, most of what the colonists charged King George with over two centuries ago, can be readily applied to Obama, his complicit Congresses, and the institutions he as chief Executive controls; i.e. the IRS,CIA,NSA, EPA to name a few, but the list goes ever on.
Just what the hell, is going on in America today? What happened to the undaunted American Spirit? All I can see is miserable, cowering, and/or brainwashed people who have forgotten their heritage!! I don't deny that Americans have been under the onslaught of negative propaganda from the growing progressive voice in our county based on the political philosophy of the Socialist Left. Theirs is a narrative that has grown ever stronger for DECADES. This coalition is the bane of the Spirit of Freedom and Liberty.
Ever since the Colonial Patriots, with the help of the French created the American Experiment of self-rule, the Antiquated Old School 'Ruling Class' has been desperate to curtail any further inroads to diminish what they themselves consider as a God Given Right. The superior right for the privileged to abuse all who they deem are not within their own 'Clique.' We do not need them to make our decisions for us. We do not need for them to establish the definition of worth or chose our direction of movement. What we need now is, for The People themselves to start learning and thinking for themselves. People who want to act, assume and become responsible for their own self-determination. If we abdicate that, we hand them our liberty.
When the self-styled Ruling Elites consider themselves as a separate and more highly esteemed entity from the rest of their fellow citizenry the trouble begins. It is only when the Leaders have similar concerns as the vast Majority of the Public, they share the same vision and goals, and they are held to the same standards that government works very well.
It is dangerous for leaders to hold themselves separate from the society that they are elected to serve; Physically, in a city but operating in a vacuum. Socially, where they mingle with influence peddlers, and Emotionally, where they share little of the burden of their policy decisions, they usually create policies that they little understand or relate to as they levy them.
History has taught us that this will manifest itself first and clearest in the venue of Criminal Justice. When the Ruling Elite create a system where the privileged of their class are held to a different standard of responsibility and accountability to the Law than the so-called average person, everything begins to break down...a spiral eventually leading to Anarchy. First manifestations example themselves when Government officials exempt themselves from the laws and regulations that they make. Sounds very much like what Congress did with Obamacare does it not?
Such burdensome political dramas tire and numb a society quickly. People strive for positive or quick distraction from the comprehensive and pervasive oppression of feeling and law. The moderately financially secure young are easily manipulated into concentrating on hedonistic activities, living for the moment, immature and self-indulgent, their lives have not yet necessitated them thinking about the future. The youth of the lower financial opportunity are made poorer and the messages of disproportionate circumstances create envy and breed mistrust. Enter into this dynamic those who would further divide us who take advantage of all issues, tragedy and current events to put a label and a color on it. They interject hatred as match to override tinder. Many pretend to be help. Many offer manifold programs that they provide, not as a hand up but as a handout to a mouth that soon forgets or desires to feed itself. This has spawned generations of families dependent on a welfare state. A welfare state that will continue to empower the cycle they cannot or will not break.
Strange as it might seem, those who have enjoyed decades of power in our country, have actually programmed our society to be accepting of the agenda they work as puppet-masters to perform and orchestrate. They fear the potential threat of a young, strong, unified, and educated generation being able to contest their rule.
The Progressive elite only want sheeple grazing in their pastures, the slaves and the needy of a general population so they can mold them and direct them to work to make them wealthier, work to support the state programs through taxes, and perpetuate envy from the poor who take from the coffers the workers fill. Who remains untouched in to scenario, who gains?
'A House divided cannot stand' Lincoln said that.A house so over-burdened with its foundation continually eroded away cannot stand either.
How long can America stand if this continues?
Do you believe that America still has a future as a Free People?
In Conclusion;
It is not too late. There is a solution, a constitutional one.
Though some would argue against it, and I cannot accept their fear as an excuse to not try.
We should all fear much more doing nothing at all.
Why do they deny the Constitutional solution?
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution of the United States wrote into the document the remedy for the out of control government we now have and that they feared. A government and a self-appointed Ruler just like King George.
Article V of the Constitution.
An Amendment proposal, at a limited convention would make damn sure the States would/could unite to repeal the 14th,16th,17th amendments. Such accomplished, we would return to the balance of separate and equal branches of our government, and we could function as intended once again. The State's powers and the 10th amendment would be restored. Executive actions would be mute. No man or woman could be a king or a queen. And from that foundation where we once started to build a nation, we can begin to restore the Republic our Founders gave to us.
The Tradesman & Ladyboots
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
BREAKING -- Pentagon Docs Reveal that Obama is Still Secretly Backing Muslim Brotherhood...
- June 3, 2015
Bill Gertz
Posted with permission from The Washington Timessupport the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.
White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan declined to comment on PSD-11. "We have nothing for you on this," she said.
The directive outlines why the administration has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood, which last year was labeled a terrorist organization by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as a key vehicle of U.S. backing for so-called political reform in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia in recent months appears to be moderating its opposition to the Brotherhood in a bid to gain more regional support against pro-Iran rebels in Yemen.
The UAE government also has labeled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. Both groups denied the UAE claims. Egypt is considering imposing a death sentence on Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed former president who was ousted in military coup in July 2013.
Critics of the administration's strategy say the Brotherhood masks its goals and objectives despite advocating an extremist ideology similar to those espoused by al Qaeda and the Islamic State, but with less violence. The group's motto includes the phrase "jihad is our way." Jihad means holy war and is the Islamist battle cry.
Counterterrorism analyst Patrick Poole said the Brotherhood in recent weeks has stepped up its use of violent attacks in Egypt.
"The failed Obama Doctrine that so-called 'moderate Islamists' were going to usher in a glorious era of peace and democracy in the Middle East was adopted by the administration because that's what the foreign policy establishment going back to the George W. Bush administration proclaimed as gospel," Mr. Poole said.
"And now we see as a result Egypt fighting a terror campaign by the 'moderate' Muslim Brotherhood; we have a failed state in Libya; and we see NATO ally Turkey turning from secular democracy to religious totalitarianism under Obama's pal [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.
"This dangerous foreign policy was launched by PSD-11 and the administration's open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, and now we can see its catastrophic effect," Mr. Poole added.
Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, extensively documented Muslim Brotherhood subversion efforts, both in the United States and abroad.
Egyptian press reports after the ouster of Mr. Morsi have revealed extensive cooperation between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood during Mr. Morsi's presidency.Mr. Gaffney has said the Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous group promoting the totalitarian and Islamist supremacist doctrine of Shariah. Several Muslim Brotherhood supporters have been identified as key advisers to Mr. Obama, according to Mr. Gaffney.
CHINESE COLONEL ON INFORMATION WARFARE
Retired Chinese Col. Liu Mingfu, one of Beijing's most significant military supremacists, this week confirmed that China is using information warfare against its enemies.
Col. Liu spoke Monday night at the Georgetown home of Michael Pillsbury, a longtime consultant to the Pentagon on China, in promoting the English-language version of the colonel's 2010 book, "The China Dream." The book calls for China to replace the United States as global hegemon. The book's ideas were adopted by Beijing's communist rulers and have become the main "thought" of current party boss and President Xi Jinping.
Asked about the contradiction between official claims that China seeks peace and the covert use of the so-called three warfares - psychological, media and legal information operations - against enemies, Col. Liu said: "I don't deny it.
"You Americans have the three warfares also," he said. "Japan has it. All the great powers in the world use these techniques. If China doesn't have it, then we definitely should have it."
The Georgetown reception brought together a number of former government officials and journalists, including former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Joseph DeTrani, former CIA official and former director of the DNI Counter Proliferation Center. New York Times reporter David Sanger and Fox News correspondent James Rosen also were present.
The reception was held at the O Street residence of Mr. Pillsbury, who was promoting his own recently published book that decodes China's anti-U.S. strategy called "The Hundred Year Marathon."
Col. Liu said he expected Mr. Pillsbury's book to be translated into Chinese and sold in China.
During remarks, Col. Liu said part of China's grand strategy is countering what he called a CIA-backed U.S. program of containment against China.
Despite noting that his remarks did not reflect official Chinese government or military policies, Col. Liu did not stray from the well-worn official talking points used by Chinese government spokesmen in presenting official views on security and policy matters.
Col. Liu in his book urged China to build up its military power to swiftly replace the United States as the world's global power. He wrote that the U.S.-Chinese rivalry is a "competition to be the leading country, a conflict over who rises and falls to dominate the world."
"To save itself, to save the world, China must prepare to become the [world's] helmsman," he states.
WHO DOUBLE-CROSSED THE SEALS?
Best-selling author and former Navy judge advocate Don Brown is out with a new book that investigates the shoot-down of Extortion 17, the worst wartime loss of life in the history of Navy special operations warfare.
The book, "Call Sign Extortion 17: The Shoot-Down of SEAL Team Six," is an exhaustive look at a tragedy for which the military's official version defies logic for some of the sailors' survivors.
The No. 1 gnawing question: How did an Afghan Taliban fighter, armed with a grenade launcher, just happen to be stationed near the Chinook helicopter's landing zone - a spot never before used to insert troops. His rocket-propelled grenade shot clipped a rotor blade, sending the non-special-operations helicopter into a violent spin and deadly crash.
The sequence of events led some family members of those killed to believe that the ambush was an inside job - that someone in the Afghan chain of command sent word to Taliban fighters that a reinforcement of SEALS was on the way to aid Army Rangers and that the aircraft was planning to land at that specified spot.
After all, on the night of Aug. 6, 2011, the Chinook was transporting the same elite unit that killedOsama bin Laden three months earlier, a group that no doubt had a target on its back from al Qaeda and its supporters.
Then there is the mystery of the Afghan soldiers on board the helicopter with the 30 Americans who perished - a U.S. Army crew, the SEALs and special warfare technicians, including a military dog handler.
The seven Afghans listed on the manifest turned out not to be the ones who died on the chopper. Their identities were not disclosed in the official censored military report.
"Were they trying to hide the politically embarrassing fact that this flight was, or could have been, compromised by Taliban infiltrators determined to help sabotage it from the inside, or to communicate with Taliban forces on the ground about the chopper's approach to coordinate the timing of a point-blank shot?" Mr. Brown writes.
"Something went terribly wrong inside that helicopter, and whatever went wrong was most likely beyond the pilots' control," he says. "It's as if the unidentified Afghan infiltrators were the big pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about."
Mr. Brown still practices law in North Carolina. He is best known for two best-selling novels, "Treason" and "Malacca Conspiracy."
For his new book, the author turns mathematician. Using official investigative documents, he concludes that the shooter was just, at most, 178 feet from the chopper when he fired, not the 720 feet as cited by the chief investigator.
"What would be the chances that Extortion 17 would just happen to fly within 75 yards of a Taliban insurgent waiting with an RPG, unless the Taliban insurgent knew in advance exactly where Extortion 17 was going to land?" Mr. Brown asks. Then, answering his own question, he writes, "About as likely as finding a needle in a haystack."
There is more than math in "Call Sign Extortion 17." A full reading may well convince readers that those men were betrayed on the night of Aug. 6.
• Staff writer Rowan Scarborough contributed to this column. Contact Bill Gertz on Twitter via @BillGertz.http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/pentagon-docs-reveal-that-obama-is-still-secretly-backing-muslim-brotherhood
ED.Note:Another critical reason why we need to demand an article V Convention of States tor Repeal the 14th,16th 17th Amendments to strip the stolen powers the Elected Officials Federal Government who over time took them from us through subterfuge and stealth wording in amendments.. - *************************************************************************************************************
The Unlikely Race-Blind Mastermind Who’s Teeing Up the Roberts Court Just Scored Again
By Cristian Farias
Edward Blum, circa February 2013. (Photo by Matt McClain for The Washington Post via Getty Images) Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post
The Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
TAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMOREThe Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
The Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/meet-the-mastermind-teeing-up-the-roberts-court.html?om_rid=AAVYjE&om_mid=_BVaLvjB9CIhtjN
TAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMORETAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMORE
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
TAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMOREThe Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
The Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he's made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Related StoriesHow a Judge Managed to Acquit the Cleveland Cop Who Fired 49 RoundsThe Supreme Court Decided Its First Cop-Shooting Case Since Ferguson. Cops Won.Here's proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court's appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and helost again there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices consideredwhether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the '60s and '70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy group Blum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Harvard, a private institution, receives millions in federal funds, the lawsuit is a creative way to get the Ivy League to open up its books and reveal its rubric for granting and denying admissions. And if a federal judge agrees that the process is discriminatory under existing law, there goes Harvard’s “holistic” approach to reviewing candidates for admissions. Title VI would survive; the admissions policy would not, ostensibly because receipt of federal funding matters more to Harvard than the way it gauges applicants for its ranks.
The Evenwel case is subtler yet no less fascinating. In it, Blum’s lawyers argue that Texas is in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims, a case from the civil-rights era interpreting the 14th Amendment. The argument is rather simple: The Constitution forbids the Texas Legislature from drawing legislative districts based on total population; instead, districts must be proportionately drawn on the basis of the total number of voters. To anchor the argument, Blum’s lawyers seize on a line from anotherSupreme Court case of the same era, one holding that “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”
On its face, Evenwel sounds like a slam-dunk case that only seeks fair representation for voters everywhere. Except the political reality in Texas and elsewhere is far different. Do elected officials only represent voters, or their constituents as a whole? What about children, noncitizens, people with mental illnesses, or those disenfranchised owing to felony convictions? Do they matter for map-drawing purposes? And what about “taxation without representation”? Does that figure into the analysis?
Though Evenwel doesn’t extend to congressional districts, where the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly controls, a ruling favoring Blum could have big implications in urban areas like New York or California, where alarge percentage of Latinos and otherwise non-voting groups reside. And as the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, such a ruling could “flip many district sizes on their head” — shifting voting power to suburban and rural areas, where voters are older, whiter, and tend to vote Republican.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this by merely reading the jurisdictional request in Evenwel. Blum’s color-blind appeal to the Supreme Court makes no mention of race, demographics, or even the political dynamics at stake. It is simply an appeal based on equality for all voters, under a principle the court itself formulated decades ago. We’ll know soon enough whether the justices buy this reasoning or see the bigger picture of Evenwel and its repercussions. But at least five of them have agreed with Blum before.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/meet-the-mastermind-teeing-up-the-roberts-court.html?om_rid=AAVYjE&om_mid=_BVaLvjB9CIhtjN
TAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMORETAGS:THE LAWSCOTUSEDWARD BLUMEVENWELMORE
7 Stages of the Progressive Agenda
TAGE 1: Identify the issue.
Any Progressive can make an issue out of anything. That's the Power of the People! Just name it and blame Republicans. Many issues never go beyond Stage 1 because they are so readily and widely embraced by the masses. Examples include free cell phones, free gas, and free Obama money from his stash. Whatever the issue, throw it at the wall and don't worry if it doesn't stick—there are at least six more ways to make sure it does!
STAGE 2: Promote the issue.
Exhort media minions to give saturation coverage to the latest issue, to build consensus, create buzz and subsequently demand. People who never thought this was something they should have, and have happily lived without it for years, will start thinking this is something they should have and absolutely cannot live without—especially if they're persuaded that not having it is why they've never been as happy as they previously and mistakenly believed. Blame Republicans. If it still shows signs of sliding down the wall, then proceed to the next stage.
STAGE 3: Say it's a MORAL issue.
Remember back in the 80's, when evangelical Christofascism was infecting the country at fever pitch, and Progressives tried to combat it by saying you can't legislate morality? When that didn't work, we simply expropriated the word and changed the definition like we do with everything else. Now, morality refers to support of the Progressive agenda, and you'd better believe we're going to legislate it to the hilt! Whatever it is Progressives want to do, it is the MORAL thing to do. Ergo, to oppose it is simply...immoral.
And who among us wants to be immoral? Don't we all want to do the right thing? The correct thing? All we want to do is help people so they can live better lives—what's wrong with that? It's moral, isn't it? Somewhere down the line, there are supposed to be grand and glorious rewards for being moral, for without them, who would bother?
To say it's a moral issue is like giving the masses a mild laxative—sometimes all people need is just a gentle little push, something to soften them and ease the passage. At this point, we usually get government funding, and maybe a czar to oversee it. The media continues to do its part to promote it, while celebrities begin sporting the appropriately colored awareness ribbons.
Yet there will still be those who are either too confused or ignorant to see the light. That, or they're simply...immoral. Or amoral. Either way, they're so not moral that they're perfectly happy to see that issue slide down the wall till it plops on the ground. Blame Republicans. But that's when we must implement the next stage.
STAGE 4: Declare the issue a CRISIS!
Sometimes Progressives will skip over the first three stages to Stage 4, in which case, this is where it really starts. You don't get anything through Congress or the courts simply by saying it's "nice to have." No. It is a CRISIS! Lives are in danger! Planet is in peril! Time is running out! We must start taking steps to begin taking action NOW!
A crisis receives even more funding, and the establishment of a government agency to impose regulations that will eventually bring it under control—but only as long as funding continues and keeps pace with inflation.
The media will continue beating their drums. In addition to the awareness ribbons, celebrities make speeches about it at awards shows, and start incorporating it into the plot lines of their movies and "Very Special Episodes" of TV shows, etc. The masses must be made aware of the CRISIS!
But there will still be scoffers. Skeptics. Deniers. Those who say there is no crisis. Those who say that no matter what the crisis, it's always been here and hasn't hurt anyone or anything. Those who say it's just another wealth redistribution scheme. Those, especially at the corporate level in the private sector, who spend millions, billions, and gazillions to convince the masses that there is no crisis, all to protect the ill-gotten profits they stole from those same masses! Why, they'll say that it isn't even an issue, let alone a crisis! Blame Republicans. People dependent on being told what to think will be tricked into believing these lies instead of the current truth.
That's what we Progressives call "a messaging problem." Therefore, we must double down and move to the next stage.
STAGE 5: Call it a HEALTH issue!
All we want to do is help people. All we want to do is help them make better decisions, the right choices, so they can live healthy, happy, productive lives without fear of death, disease, or destruction. How can anyone with an ounce of compassion be against that?
But sometimes it's not enough to say lives are in danger, or the planet is in peril. Sometimes we have to be more specific, because some people, dagnabbit, just aren't satisfied with vague generalities. This is why "individualism" is such a bad idea—it encourages people to dwell on the nitpicky details of how an issue, even when it's been elevated to the level of crisis, will personally affect them and their selfish little private world.
So let's make it personal! Bring on the testimonies! Call on those who will share their heartbreaking stories of how their health, and by extension their lives, have been ruined because of the crisis! Blame Republicans. Poverty, income inequality, climate change...all of these things have an adverse impact on a person's health and well being.
Show pictures of suffering children. Crumbling glaciers. Rising floodwaters. Drowning polar bears. Smokestacks belching out billows of black smoke. Oil-soaked baby animals with huge, sad brown eyes. Tearful Native Americans standing at the side of the road with heaps of garbage at their feet. Don't just tug on those heartstrings—yank 'em taut and play 'em like a Strad!
Then show the masses what it all leads to: Starvation! Disease! Non-breathable air! Undrinkable water! Carcasses! Stink! Gross! Death! Destruction! Doom!
Only one thing will solve these problems and reverse the inevitable before it's too late—more government funding! Yet there will still be those who don't care. Who just want others to die quickly. Who don't want to spend the mere few pennies a day per person it would cost to eliminate these horrors forever and ever and ever.
That's when we roll out the next stage.
STAGE 6: Enshrine it as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue!
Nothing shuts down dissent like calling it a civil rights issue, because anyone who opposes anything to do with civil rights can be labeled a bigot, a hater, or any kind of phobe. Civil rights always trump all other rights, and this allows us to shame the haters and bigots and make them feel like the outcasts they are, on the extreme fringe, the wrong side of history!
Once an issue is consecrated as a matter of civil rights, the masses will hold marches and rallies across the country to demand it. There may be riots and vandalism, and many innocents will be hurt or jailed, or even killed. Blame Republicans.
The issue will finally go before the people for a vote—and if it doesn't pass, no problem! The courts will overturn it because it is a civil right! And the people will keep marching and rallying and blaming Republicans until that happens!
Nothing is more sacred than a civil right...except, perhaps, the government that keeps it sanctified through continued funding and special protections and privileges for anyone the civil right touches.
In the meantime, there will still be bigots and haters who are just too shameless to be shamed. Haters gotta hate. There will still be those who insist that religious rights and so-called inalienable rights endowed by some mythical being should matter. And there will still be enough of them to block the march of progress, and with it the necessary funding, without which all will be lost if we don't make the decision to do something to take the needed steps to start action now, before it's too late!
Which brings us to the next stage...
STAGE 7: Dammit! Can't you people see the crisis is not just a moral issue or a health issue or a question of civil rights? It's a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!
To not treat it as a matter of National Security is, as President Obama recently told graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, a "dereliction of duty." Members of the military can be court-martialed for it. Under conditions of war, they may be executed for it.
When something is declared a matter of National Security, anyone who does not treat it as such is willfully endangering millions of lives and the future of the entire planet. They are seditious. They are enemies of the State. They are guilty of treason and crimes against humanity. Therefore, they must forfeit all. We kept warning them millions would die, didn't we?
Throw them against the wall. Don't worry if they don't stick. This time, we want them to drop to the ground.
And don't forget to blame Republicans.
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/7-stages-of-the-progressive-agenda-t16369.html
Any Progressive can make an issue out of anything. That's the Power of the People! Just name it and blame Republicans. Many issues never go beyond Stage 1 because they are so readily and widely embraced by the masses. Examples include free cell phones, free gas, and free Obama money from his stash. Whatever the issue, throw it at the wall and don't worry if it doesn't stick—there are at least six more ways to make sure it does!
STAGE 2: Promote the issue.
Exhort media minions to give saturation coverage to the latest issue, to build consensus, create buzz and subsequently demand. People who never thought this was something they should have, and have happily lived without it for years, will start thinking this is something they should have and absolutely cannot live without—especially if they're persuaded that not having it is why they've never been as happy as they previously and mistakenly believed. Blame Republicans. If it still shows signs of sliding down the wall, then proceed to the next stage.
STAGE 3: Say it's a MORAL issue.
Remember back in the 80's, when evangelical Christofascism was infecting the country at fever pitch, and Progressives tried to combat it by saying you can't legislate morality? When that didn't work, we simply expropriated the word and changed the definition like we do with everything else. Now, morality refers to support of the Progressive agenda, and you'd better believe we're going to legislate it to the hilt! Whatever it is Progressives want to do, it is the MORAL thing to do. Ergo, to oppose it is simply...immoral.
And who among us wants to be immoral? Don't we all want to do the right thing? The correct thing? All we want to do is help people so they can live better lives—what's wrong with that? It's moral, isn't it? Somewhere down the line, there are supposed to be grand and glorious rewards for being moral, for without them, who would bother?
To say it's a moral issue is like giving the masses a mild laxative—sometimes all people need is just a gentle little push, something to soften them and ease the passage. At this point, we usually get government funding, and maybe a czar to oversee it. The media continues to do its part to promote it, while celebrities begin sporting the appropriately colored awareness ribbons.
Yet there will still be those who are either too confused or ignorant to see the light. That, or they're simply...immoral. Or amoral. Either way, they're so not moral that they're perfectly happy to see that issue slide down the wall till it plops on the ground. Blame Republicans. But that's when we must implement the next stage.
STAGE 4: Declare the issue a CRISIS!
Sometimes Progressives will skip over the first three stages to Stage 4, in which case, this is where it really starts. You don't get anything through Congress or the courts simply by saying it's "nice to have." No. It is a CRISIS! Lives are in danger! Planet is in peril! Time is running out! We must start taking steps to begin taking action NOW!
A crisis receives even more funding, and the establishment of a government agency to impose regulations that will eventually bring it under control—but only as long as funding continues and keeps pace with inflation.
The media will continue beating their drums. In addition to the awareness ribbons, celebrities make speeches about it at awards shows, and start incorporating it into the plot lines of their movies and "Very Special Episodes" of TV shows, etc. The masses must be made aware of the CRISIS!
But there will still be scoffers. Skeptics. Deniers. Those who say there is no crisis. Those who say that no matter what the crisis, it's always been here and hasn't hurt anyone or anything. Those who say it's just another wealth redistribution scheme. Those, especially at the corporate level in the private sector, who spend millions, billions, and gazillions to convince the masses that there is no crisis, all to protect the ill-gotten profits they stole from those same masses! Why, they'll say that it isn't even an issue, let alone a crisis! Blame Republicans. People dependent on being told what to think will be tricked into believing these lies instead of the current truth.
That's what we Progressives call "a messaging problem." Therefore, we must double down and move to the next stage.
STAGE 5: Call it a HEALTH issue!
All we want to do is help people. All we want to do is help them make better decisions, the right choices, so they can live healthy, happy, productive lives without fear of death, disease, or destruction. How can anyone with an ounce of compassion be against that?
But sometimes it's not enough to say lives are in danger, or the planet is in peril. Sometimes we have to be more specific, because some people, dagnabbit, just aren't satisfied with vague generalities. This is why "individualism" is such a bad idea—it encourages people to dwell on the nitpicky details of how an issue, even when it's been elevated to the level of crisis, will personally affect them and their selfish little private world.
So let's make it personal! Bring on the testimonies! Call on those who will share their heartbreaking stories of how their health, and by extension their lives, have been ruined because of the crisis! Blame Republicans. Poverty, income inequality, climate change...all of these things have an adverse impact on a person's health and well being.
Show pictures of suffering children. Crumbling glaciers. Rising floodwaters. Drowning polar bears. Smokestacks belching out billows of black smoke. Oil-soaked baby animals with huge, sad brown eyes. Tearful Native Americans standing at the side of the road with heaps of garbage at their feet. Don't just tug on those heartstrings—yank 'em taut and play 'em like a Strad!
Then show the masses what it all leads to: Starvation! Disease! Non-breathable air! Undrinkable water! Carcasses! Stink! Gross! Death! Destruction! Doom!
Only one thing will solve these problems and reverse the inevitable before it's too late—more government funding! Yet there will still be those who don't care. Who just want others to die quickly. Who don't want to spend the mere few pennies a day per person it would cost to eliminate these horrors forever and ever and ever.
That's when we roll out the next stage.
STAGE 6: Enshrine it as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue!
Nothing shuts down dissent like calling it a civil rights issue, because anyone who opposes anything to do with civil rights can be labeled a bigot, a hater, or any kind of phobe. Civil rights always trump all other rights, and this allows us to shame the haters and bigots and make them feel like the outcasts they are, on the extreme fringe, the wrong side of history!
Once an issue is consecrated as a matter of civil rights, the masses will hold marches and rallies across the country to demand it. There may be riots and vandalism, and many innocents will be hurt or jailed, or even killed. Blame Republicans.
The issue will finally go before the people for a vote—and if it doesn't pass, no problem! The courts will overturn it because it is a civil right! And the people will keep marching and rallying and blaming Republicans until that happens!
Nothing is more sacred than a civil right...except, perhaps, the government that keeps it sanctified through continued funding and special protections and privileges for anyone the civil right touches.
In the meantime, there will still be bigots and haters who are just too shameless to be shamed. Haters gotta hate. There will still be those who insist that religious rights and so-called inalienable rights endowed by some mythical being should matter. And there will still be enough of them to block the march of progress, and with it the necessary funding, without which all will be lost if we don't make the decision to do something to take the needed steps to start action now, before it's too late!
Which brings us to the next stage...
STAGE 7: Dammit! Can't you people see the crisis is not just a moral issue or a health issue or a question of civil rights? It's a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!
To not treat it as a matter of National Security is, as President Obama recently told graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, a "dereliction of duty." Members of the military can be court-martialed for it. Under conditions of war, they may be executed for it.
When something is declared a matter of National Security, anyone who does not treat it as such is willfully endangering millions of lives and the future of the entire planet. They are seditious. They are enemies of the State. They are guilty of treason and crimes against humanity. Therefore, they must forfeit all. We kept warning them millions would die, didn't we?
Throw them against the wall. Don't worry if they don't stick. This time, we want them to drop to the ground.
And don't forget to blame Republicans.
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/7-stages-of-the-progressive-agenda-t16369.html
"America Is On the Threshold of a Deepening Twilight"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues.
© Copyright Sunday, May 17, 2015 - All Rights Reserved
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues.
© Copyright Sunday, May 17, 2015 - All Rights Reserved
"Enthusiasm is the yeast that makes your hopes shine to the stars. Enthusiasm is the sparkle in your eyes, the swing in your gait, the grip of your hand, the irresistible surge of will and energy to execute your ideas." Henry Ford
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry Ford was the embodiment of the American free spirit. No, he wasn't perfect. Fortunately however, he materialized on the American scene before America became the country of "I can't" or, "you'd better not", or "it's against the law." Many like Ford have gone before him and many more will follow him, because that bright star that is America, is a breeding ground for new bright stars almost every day, in spite of the doom and gloom that we see through the distorted window, into which we observe reality.
A star is born in our apparently infinite Universe as the result of two opposing forces, gravity and nuclear energy. A whirling ball of hydrogen gas, the most prevalent element in the Universe, starts to condense, as gravity pulls the hydrogen atoms closer together. As gravity increases the density of the hydrogen, the friction of the atoms crashing into each other, starts to create immense heat. Finally, the heat rises to the point (nuclear fusion) that atoms of hydrogen are fused into atoms of helium at an un-imaginable rate. At the point of fusion, massive amounts of energy radiate into the void and a star is born. The heat and light from the new star bring forth life unto the Heavens.
The gravity of the infant star reaches out its tentacles into the disc shape of gas that surrounds the star, where the accretion of gas and rock have been condensed into planets. The planets then begin their long journey around the mother star in the grip of her gravity, until the mother star finally writhes in the death throes of its red giant and white dwarf phases, 8 or 10 billions years after the star's birth. At the point where the inner planets are consumed by their mother, the Universe won't take a single notice of the event, as stars are dying and being born every second, somewhere in the cosmos.
Some balls of hydrogen gas are so immense they create super stars, many times the size of our Sun. As the nuclear forces start to decline, at the end of the star's normal nuclear life, the force of gravity begins to crunch the star like a vice such that a sugar cube of material could weigh 100 billion tons. At a certain point, the rising nuclear forces resulting from the increasing gravity, explodes the star in a super nova, sending the expanding gas and debris out into space at 600,000 miles per hour, annihilating anything and everything in its path. The visible light from the super nova can be seen from billions of light years away, billions of years back in time. The light from the super nova can be many times brighter than the light from all the stars in the galaxy, in which the super nova star resides.
America was also born out of two opposing forces, government oppression and the insatiable and unstoppable human desire for freedom. As the "heat" began to rise from the tightening grip of King George the III on the colonialists, the inhabitants of this new land on a new continent, reached critical mass and a unique new country was born out of revolution, a country that is the brightest star of any country that ever formed on this third planet from our mother star, the Sun. America was and is the super nova of all other countries and will remain so, if her bright light of liberty is not snuffed out by apathy, neglect, in-attention, treachery and treason from within.
The American people (millions of them) are the energy that keeps the star of America shining brightly and they radiate her message of freedom into the depths of depravity, despair, corruption and savagery that exist in so many other parts of our world. Her technology, industriousness, creativity, production and generosity reaches out and touches almost every other person on the planet. That energy is the product of living under the umbrella of liberty. That umbrella of liberty has its foundation in our natural, God-given rights, codified into law by our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution.
But serious cracks have formed in America's foundation and serious efforts are needed to shore up those cracks. If the cracks are allowed to expand, at a certain point, no amount of effort will be able to fill them, the foundation will collapse and a free America will be no more. Fear of this deepening twilight has gripped us.
Deep in the recesses of our brains, lies a hidden dread from the long, perilous days and nights in the mountains, steppes, jungles, deserts and the grassy plains of tens of thousands of years ago. A leftover dread no doubt, from our caveman existence, where our fears were not confined to our nightmares, but in reality itself. Death stalked the day and the night in the form of stealthy carnivores (animal and human), in a pre-historic land where humans had not yet reached the top of the food chain and were in fact, the hunted, as well as the hunter.
As our Sun sets on the western horizon, sometimes in unequaled splendor of a thousand changing colors, sometimes in an iridescent flaming yellow and then orange, sometimes hidden behind the clouds in a deepening twilight, we grow almost unconsciously uneasy and seek the light and warmth of our homes and the company of loved ones to escape the approaching darkness.
Even our children fear the night. Many young children go through what are called night terrors. It is not a learned fear from their environment, but an inherited one. All three of our grand children experienced night terrors in one form or another, in their pre-school years. To calm their fears we tried reasoning with them, explaining that nothing was there in the dark that wasn't there in the light of day. But that inherent, built-in irrational fear of the night would not be overcome so easily by logic or reason. They wanted their night-light, period and they wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Sometimes we gave in, sometimes we didn't.
Yes, our children eventually grow out of it, but that fear lies semi-dormant in most adults, civilized or aborigine, that are not accustomed to sharing the night with the carnivores (man or beast) that lurk in the dark shadows, outside the perceived protection and security of our homes.
So each day, we proceed from day to night with subconscious trepidation. Lingering in the back of our minds, we wonder if we will ever see the Sun again. Will death or severe illness come in the dark of night? Will this be our last night on Earth? Will the power of government consume us? Nevertheless, in spite of our fears, we have the "faith" that the Sun will rise again and provide us the light on the coming morrow that will illuminate our way, on a brand new day.
And so it is with fear and trepidation, we transition from the bright light of 230 plus years of American liberty to the darkening skies of government-instituted tyranny and socialism and maybe even fascism. We fear for our liberty, our security and our lives. We fear for our children's future. We fear for our beloved America. Will she continue under the flag of freedom, or will she descend into the depths of depravity, mind-numbing mediocrity, bankruptcy and slavery? Are we to be consumed by the growing national and international power of those who would enslave us all, or will the strength of our belief in individual freedom and liberty be enough to overcome the evil beast that is Hell bent on wrapping us in chains?
As we have faith that the night will soon turn to the welcome light of day, so too we must have faith that the twilight of tyranny we now enter, as our Sun of Freedom descends into the deepening darkness, will ultimately end in a new day of liberty, on a not-too-distant horizon. We can hold that faith because the spark of freedom in the minds of the preponderance of Americans, is unique to any culture or country on Earth and it shall not, it will not, be extinguished. American liberty is like bubbles in the sea that always rise to the surface in search of the freedom to fly "free" in the open sky.
As we wrote in our book, "Stare Deep Into the Cosmos", "he who looks down shall see a very narrow horizon, but he who looks up, shall feast on all of heaven." As Americans who are free in thought and deed, we must start the daily and nightly practice of looking up, if we are to have the courage to re-claim our freedom.
Although silent we may be, when united, people of freedom have the power to climb over any obstacle, root out any corruption, or replace any tyrannical government. The difficult challenge lies before us, the place is here in America, the time is now and the world is watching what we do. This author has the unshakable confidence that true, brave and courageous Americans are up to the challenge and will ultimately prevail. As we pass into a "night" of gathering uncertainty, so too will we pass into a new dawn of freedom, just as we did the year freedom was born, and like then, we will be born anew.
Today, the American people are still capable of collective heroism and the challenge to abusive authority, just as they were during the revolution that set us free. We see the growing signs of that emerging heroism almost every day now. That those in government and on the left, are becoming aware of this rising tide is evident by their irrational panic to pass more controlling legislation and "sending hither onto our land, evil agents to eat out our substance" ….. before all Hell breaks loose.
Let us emphasize that there is no other country like America and there are no people like the American people, anywhere on earth. Freedom is burned into their souls and the brave ones, the collective American heroes, will not let freedom die, no matter what it takes to preserve it.
So we say to those who oppose individual liberty, the gift from our creator, we are right and you are wrong, because freedom is right and slavery is wrong; achievement and to strive for excellence is right and free loading, sloth and mediocrity are wrong; independence and self-reliance are right and dependence is wrong. We also say to those who work to tear down America's liberty, sovereignty and its moral and ethical values, your time is drawing to a close. In the end, we have no doubt that we shall prevail, just like we prevailed on the day that freedom was born when "..... a shot was fired, a shot heard 'round the world".
Stand steady and strong. Tyranny and corruption will be challenged on all fronts. The threshold for a peaceful American revolution is at hand. Wait for it, because it is coming. It is now "they" that fear us and as we gather strength, we shall no longer fear "them." At the very moment our fear is gone, our Sun of Freedom will burst forth on the horizon.
But like all births, "some pain through adversity will come with the escape from the hidden dread of the deepening twilight." Because you see, adversity is the forge that molds our strength and courage and is the only true lesson for life and survival. When we eliminate adversity, as government has done and is still doing, the people grow weak, apathetic, sloppy and mediocre. Weak, apathetic, sloppy and mediocre people are easy to subjugate and enslave.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, representatives, employees, or agents of the publisher.
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org), an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State. He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.
.
Endless Racial Discord
By Alan Caruba
When I look back at the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, I marvel at how naïve I was that the passage of major legislation was going to “solve” the problem of discord between the white and black race.
On May 3, the Wall Street Journal reported on a survey regarding racial disturbances around the nation such as those that wracked Baltimore. “A resounding 96% of adults surveyed said it was likely there would be additional racial disturbances this summer…” To nobody’s surprise, blacks and whites “viewed the situation differently.”
“Asked to choose between two possible explanations for recent events, 60% of blacks said they reflected ‘long-standing frustrations about police mistreatment of African-Americans.’” Some 27% of black respondents said they thought the disturbances were caused by people as an excuse “to engage in looting and violence.” I favor the latter explanation because I doubt that our nation’s police forces engage in deliberate harassment and mistreatment of blacks.
Indeed, Baltimore has a back Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a black police chief, and many blacks among his force. If the issue was the police, then no city in America is safe and that is just not so. Unfortunately, the foolishness of Baltimore’s Mayor, who told the force to stand down and let the rioters have their way, was then demonstrated by her request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launch an investigation of the city’s police force.
The problem with that is that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has only fifty employees responsible for handling labor-intensive ‘pattern or practice’ investigations among the nation’s 18,000 state and local forces. There is no way the Baltimore investigation will produce anything of useful information. It is far more likely that the outcome will be more political than demonstrative of trends.
What is generally not being noticed is that the Obama administration, as reported in Politico.com on May 8, “has opened more than twenty such investigations into local law enforcement agencies “most of which result in either a settlement agreement with local officials or a lawsuit that pushes legally binding reform.”
When I look back at the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, I marvel at how naïve I was that the passage of major legislation was going to “solve” the problem of discord between the white and black race.
On May 3, the Wall Street Journal reported on a survey regarding racial disturbances around the nation such as those that wracked Baltimore. “A resounding 96% of adults surveyed said it was likely there would be additional racial disturbances this summer…” To nobody’s surprise, blacks and whites “viewed the situation differently.”
“Asked to choose between two possible explanations for recent events, 60% of blacks said they reflected ‘long-standing frustrations about police mistreatment of African-Americans.’” Some 27% of black respondents said they thought the disturbances were caused by people as an excuse “to engage in looting and violence.” I favor the latter explanation because I doubt that our nation’s police forces engage in deliberate harassment and mistreatment of blacks.
Indeed, Baltimore has a back Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a black police chief, and many blacks among his force. If the issue was the police, then no city in America is safe and that is just not so. Unfortunately, the foolishness of Baltimore’s Mayor, who told the force to stand down and let the rioters have their way, was then demonstrated by her request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launch an investigation of the city’s police force.
The problem with that is that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has only fifty employees responsible for handling labor-intensive ‘pattern or practice’ investigations among the nation’s 18,000 state and local forces. There is no way the Baltimore investigation will produce anything of useful information. It is far more likely that the outcome will be more political than demonstrative of trends.
What is generally not being noticed is that the Obama administration, as reported in Politico.com on May 8, “has opened more than twenty such investigations into local law enforcement agencies “most of which result in either a settlement agreement with local officials or a lawsuit that pushes legally binding reform.”
I have come to the view that the most racially divisive leader in America is our first African-American President. Why else has Rev. Al Sharpton become his most widely recognized “adviser” and why are administration figures are less likely to be found honoring fallen police officers than the alleged black victims? Three were sent to Freddie Gray’s funeral and none to the funeral of the slain police officers. The First Lady, too, has been stirring up racial discord.
Referring to the Baltimore riot, he said that “we as a nation have to do some soul-searching” when as William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal noted the trillions spent on liberal programs, personified by LBJ’s “War on Poverty”, have not succeeded in reducing poverty and have contributed to creating whole populations that live off of government handouts of one sort or another.
“While the Great Society’s billions were creating a culture of dependency,” said McGurn, “South Korea—with its emphasis on trade and global competition—rose from the ashes of a terrible war to become the world’s 12th largest economy.” This occurred over the same time period the liberal dependency programs and liberal governance of many U.S. cities created the problem we are addressing and discussing today.
Nor is the answer for the federal government to take over the management of the nation’s police forces. We have already seen how it has ruined the educational system and is now doing the same to our health system.
Are their differences between whites and blacks? Yes, but they are economic. Middle and upper class blacks share the outlook of their white counterparts. They look at the inner cities and they understand that decades of liberal governance has driven out businesses large and small, along with anyone who could afford to leave. Yes, there was “white flight”, but they were joined by blacks who saw there was no future to be had there for their children. The rest are trapped.
So, will there be more riots and disturbances in our cities this summer? Yes, that would appear to be the case. So long as police are not allowed to take action against the instigators and perpetrators, that is a given.
Not until this nation returns to the high levels of respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day will we see a cessation of such events. My experience and the nation’s over the past six decades is an indication that some pundit will be holding forth on this topic six decades from now…only it will be worse.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
Referring to the Baltimore riot, he said that “we as a nation have to do some soul-searching” when as William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal noted the trillions spent on liberal programs, personified by LBJ’s “War on Poverty”, have not succeeded in reducing poverty and have contributed to creating whole populations that live off of government handouts of one sort or another.
“While the Great Society’s billions were creating a culture of dependency,” said McGurn, “South Korea—with its emphasis on trade and global competition—rose from the ashes of a terrible war to become the world’s 12th largest economy.” This occurred over the same time period the liberal dependency programs and liberal governance of many U.S. cities created the problem we are addressing and discussing today.
Nor is the answer for the federal government to take over the management of the nation’s police forces. We have already seen how it has ruined the educational system and is now doing the same to our health system.
Are their differences between whites and blacks? Yes, but they are economic. Middle and upper class blacks share the outlook of their white counterparts. They look at the inner cities and they understand that decades of liberal governance has driven out businesses large and small, along with anyone who could afford to leave. Yes, there was “white flight”, but they were joined by blacks who saw there was no future to be had there for their children. The rest are trapped.
So, will there be more riots and disturbances in our cities this summer? Yes, that would appear to be the case. So long as police are not allowed to take action against the instigators and perpetrators, that is a given.
Not until this nation returns to the high levels of respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day will we see a cessation of such events. My experience and the nation’s over the past six decades is an indication that some pundit will be holding forth on this topic six decades from now…only it will be worse.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
Obama's Middle East DebacleBy Alan Caruba
I had to laugh when I heard that the new King of Saudi Arabia, Salmon, told the White House he wasn’t going to attend Thursday’s photo-up get together of Arab leaders. Some lesser Saudi officials will attend. The message is clear enough, so long as Obama continues to make nice with Iran, the center of the problems in the Middle East, the Saudis and the others are going to be wary of any proposal that comes out of the White House.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, Obama seems to have no idea of the history or the dynamics that affect all the actions there. His Secretary of State, Kerry, is no better. He met with Arab officials last Friday and they told him they want a defense treaty in the event they were attacked by “external forces”, something that the Congress will not approve so long as Obama is in the White House.
One would think that any President at this point would have concluded that the Palestinians have no intention of signing onto a peace treaty with the Israelis.
Writing in The New York Times on May 8, Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it bluntly, “It doesn’t matter what these politicians think now or have said in in the past. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not happening in the next two years.” That’s how long we all have to wait until Obama leaves office.
David P.Goldman, a Senior Fellow of the Middle East Forum, writing in Asia Times Online on May 10, spelled it out. “It is inconvenient for diplomats to say so, but the Palestinian Authority collapsed quite some time ago,” noting that “President Mahmoud Abbas’ term in office began in 2005 and ended six years ago, and he has not called new elections for the simple reason that Hamas—the Palestinian branch of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood—would win those elections.” These days the Egyptians label Hamas a terrorist organization and have taken steps to eliminate the Brotherhood. At least they know who the enemy is.
Obama has been antagonistic to Israel from before he was elected and has made little effort to hide it. Consider this, as Goldman notes, “Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel in 2014, prompting Israeli counterstrikes during the summer.” Its declared intention and the reason for its existence is to eliminate the State of Israel. Why are we surprised to hear that Obama wants to take the statehood issue to the United Nations, a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and has little to say of the Palestinian Authority’s assertion that it wants to drag Israel in front of the International Criminal Court for having defended itself against the attacks by Hamas!
Not only has the Saudi King sent Obama a message, but so did the Israelis when they overwhelmingly reelected Benjamin Netanyahu as their Prime Minister. “The Israelis look around the Middle East and see nothing but conflict, carnage, instability and danger,” said Schanzer. “The Obama doctrine—which includes a deliberate contraction of American power in the Middle East—has undeniably made Israel less safe.”
It has made the U.S. and the world less safe too.
One of the most obscene aspects of the Obama obsession with Iran is that, in return for any deal—which Iran would ignore and cheat—they are ready “to provide as much as $120 billion in sanctions relief to satisfy the narrow technical parameters of a nuclear deal, which would legitimize Iran as a threshold nuclear state. These funds,” said Schanzer, “will flow to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Iran terror proxies dedicated to Israel’s demise.”
To put all this in perspective, as Goldman reminds us, “From Israel’s standpoint, the Palestinian Authority was offered 95% of Judea and Samaria in return for a final peace agreement, and both times (at Camp David in 1999 under Ehud Barack and in 2008 under Ehud Olmert) the offer was rejected.”
“The U.N. Security Council,” said Goldman, “will punish Israel for the failure of negotiations that were meaningless to begin with, and establish a Hamas-controlled state within nine miles of the Mediterranean coast. Iran has already promised to arm West Bank Arabs, just as it armed Hezbollah and Hamas.”
Israel which has enjoyed the support of the United States since it declared its independence in 1948 is now put at risk by the first administration to deliberately turn its back on it in preference for a deal with the leading terror-sponsor, Iran, in the Middle East.
You cannot make a greater mess of the mess that already exists in the Middle East, but Obama is doing his best to add to it. What else should we expect from a President who refuses to utter words like “Islamic terrorism”?
© Alan Caruba, 2015
McConnell wants to Ignore Federal Court Ruling, and let the NSA keep Spying on Americans
Guest Editorial
by McFixit1
Recently, the New York Times reported on"The Federal Appeals Court Ruling on the NSA's Data Collection Jolts Both Defenders and Reformers" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/us/politics/court-ruling-on-nsa-d... ) and that article Highlights the excessive move by Constitution Ignoring Establishment Republican Politicians to maintain their Oligarchy like powers above and beyond what the Constitution grants them.
This Constitution abrogating 'Patriot Act', is still championed by McConnell in it's every aspect and Constitution ignoring line. That sentiment is seconded by Senator Richard M. Burr (R-North Carolina), who is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee ( http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ ), and remember that the Uber-liberal lefty Diane Feinstein (who wants to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights and disarm all Americans) is the Vice Chair of that select group, which in turn seems to want to take away all of our Constitutional Freedoms Guaranteed in the Bill of Rights under the guise of National Security and Safety, the misbegotten 'Patriot Act' so regularly shreds
( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_... ).
Senator Burr even defended the excesses of the Act by saying;" The idea that somehow we wrote the law in a way that didn't provide that statutory language is a joke". I may be old fashioned, but that statement to me shows an abiding contempt for the law by Elitists who consider themselves so far above the law they can do as they please. You can read the 97 page ruling ( http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf ) to see where it debunks Senator Burr's comments about the Act being written properly.
On 5/22/2014, the House passed H.R. 3361- USA Freedom Act ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361 ) and now it's up to the Senate to act in the interests of the Constitution and the American People, to pass this legislation. Rand Paul is championing the idea that the Courts ruling has supplanted the 'Patriot Act' Law.
Call your Senators and back Senator Paul's move to end this continuing attack against the Constitutional Freedoms the 'Patriot Act' as written, poses. Senator McConnell and his Elitist Establishment Republican crony's want to keep the provisions of the Constitution shredding 'Patriot Act' in full force regardless of the court ruling against it. McConnell wants to keep allowing the NSA to SPY on the American Public as a matter of course and Without any Compelling or Valid Reason, or Court Order allowing them to do so.
That smacks of the kind of Secret Police moves that Hitler,Lenin, Stalin, and Mao used to keep their citizens under constant surveillance so they could move to eliminate anyone who disagreed with them. That is in direct violation of the Constitutionally Guaranteed Protections of our Unalienable Rights as Citizens of the United States.
In my opinion,and it is my considered opinion, that misbegotten move by McConnell, makes him a Traitor to the American People and, he Breaks His Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In fact McConnell and his Establishment friends want to completely ignore the Court's Ruling on what the NSA is doing is illegal, and for them to continue on doing it regardless of what the Court said. In my opinion, McConnell is either Drunk on Power, or, he has had something go wrong with his mind and/or Morals.
Senator Paul (R-Kentucky) said yesterday, he would press the issue to ban the collection of phone records altogether. Senator Ron Wyden, (D-Oregon), said he would filibuster efforts by Mr. McConnell to extend the government’s current collection authority beyond its May 31 expiration.
If we can hold off McConnell until then and block all extensions to the Act, it will become History. Please call your Senators and ask them to back Senator Paul's move on this. It will become the start of returning America to Constitutional Rule of Law!
by McFixit1
Recently, the New York Times reported on"The Federal Appeals Court Ruling on the NSA's Data Collection Jolts Both Defenders and Reformers" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/us/politics/court-ruling-on-nsa-d... ) and that article Highlights the excessive move by Constitution Ignoring Establishment Republican Politicians to maintain their Oligarchy like powers above and beyond what the Constitution grants them.
This Constitution abrogating 'Patriot Act', is still championed by McConnell in it's every aspect and Constitution ignoring line. That sentiment is seconded by Senator Richard M. Burr (R-North Carolina), who is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee ( http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ ), and remember that the Uber-liberal lefty Diane Feinstein (who wants to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights and disarm all Americans) is the Vice Chair of that select group, which in turn seems to want to take away all of our Constitutional Freedoms Guaranteed in the Bill of Rights under the guise of National Security and Safety, the misbegotten 'Patriot Act' so regularly shreds
( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_... ).
Senator Burr even defended the excesses of the Act by saying;" The idea that somehow we wrote the law in a way that didn't provide that statutory language is a joke". I may be old fashioned, but that statement to me shows an abiding contempt for the law by Elitists who consider themselves so far above the law they can do as they please. You can read the 97 page ruling ( http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf ) to see where it debunks Senator Burr's comments about the Act being written properly.
On 5/22/2014, the House passed H.R. 3361- USA Freedom Act ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361 ) and now it's up to the Senate to act in the interests of the Constitution and the American People, to pass this legislation. Rand Paul is championing the idea that the Courts ruling has supplanted the 'Patriot Act' Law.
Call your Senators and back Senator Paul's move to end this continuing attack against the Constitutional Freedoms the 'Patriot Act' as written, poses. Senator McConnell and his Elitist Establishment Republican crony's want to keep the provisions of the Constitution shredding 'Patriot Act' in full force regardless of the court ruling against it. McConnell wants to keep allowing the NSA to SPY on the American Public as a matter of course and Without any Compelling or Valid Reason, or Court Order allowing them to do so.
That smacks of the kind of Secret Police moves that Hitler,Lenin, Stalin, and Mao used to keep their citizens under constant surveillance so they could move to eliminate anyone who disagreed with them. That is in direct violation of the Constitutionally Guaranteed Protections of our Unalienable Rights as Citizens of the United States.
In my opinion,and it is my considered opinion, that misbegotten move by McConnell, makes him a Traitor to the American People and, he Breaks His Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In fact McConnell and his Establishment friends want to completely ignore the Court's Ruling on what the NSA is doing is illegal, and for them to continue on doing it regardless of what the Court said. In my opinion, McConnell is either Drunk on Power, or, he has had something go wrong with his mind and/or Morals.
Senator Paul (R-Kentucky) said yesterday, he would press the issue to ban the collection of phone records altogether. Senator Ron Wyden, (D-Oregon), said he would filibuster efforts by Mr. McConnell to extend the government’s current collection authority beyond its May 31 expiration.
If we can hold off McConnell until then and block all extensions to the Act, it will become History. Please call your Senators and ask them to back Senator Paul's move on this. It will become the start of returning America to Constitutional Rule of Law!
Isakson, Perdue Co-sponsor Legislation to Empower States to Challenge Federal Government Rules
sakson, Perdue Co-sponsor Legislation to Empower States to Challenge Federal Government Rules
Bill would restore the efficacy of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
Publish Date: 2015-04-25
Click here to view related Website: US SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKON
PoliticalNews.me - Apr 25,2015 - Isakson,
Perdue Co-sponsor Legislation to Empower
States to Challenge Federal Government Rules
Bill would restore the efficacy of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and David Perdue, R-Ga., co-sponsored legislation this week to ensure state governments are empowered to challenge federal regulations that are constitutionally questionable or burdensome.
The Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, S.1045, sets up a framework that would provide states with legal standing and a legal framework for challenging unconstitutional federal regulations and executive orders before they go into effect.
“Considering the consistent overreach by the Obama administration, this is commonsense legislation to help ensure that the 10th Amendment to our Constitution isn’t just a suggestion, but the absolute law,” said Isakson. “Our country was built on keeping government close to the people by allowing them to make decisions at the state and local level, and the powers given to the federal government delineated in the Constitution are supposed to be minimal. This legislation would help return us to the framework laid out by the Founding Fathers.”
“Georgians are disgusted with Washington’s ridiculous overreach into every area of their lives. After six years of the Obama administration ruling by executive order and regulatory overreach, we must empower our states with the opportunity to challenge egregious government overreach,” said Perdue. “Protecting the 10th Amendment is an important step in fixing the Constitutional crisis our country faces.”
Previous rulings on the issue of a state suing the federal government by the Supreme Court have been inconsistent. In their ruling on Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court stated that congressional authorization to challenge a federal action is “of critical importance to the standing inquiry.” This legislation seeks to offer legislative guidance.
Under the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, states could challenge a rule using the following steps:
State official submits legal brief to federal agency. The state official submits a legal brief to the relevant agency head challenging the rule (on 10th Amendment grounds) during the public commenting period.
Federal agency posts brief on its website. The agency must post the brief on the front page of the agency’s website so that it is immediately noticeable.
Federal agency gives notice to other states. Within 15 days after the state official submits the brief, the agency must give notice of the brief to designated officials for each state.
Federal agency certifies that the rule does not violate the 10th Amendment. Within 15 days after posting the brief, the agency head must certify in writing that the rule does not violate the 10th Amendment and provide the legal reasoning supporting the same.
Federal agency posts certification on its website. The agency must post the certification on its website alongside the state’s legal brief.
State official may now file suit against the federal agency. The official may file in the district court where his/her place of business is located.
Courts shall grant expedited appeal upon request. Should the official file a notice of appeal, the appellate court shall grant expedited review of a decision.
Isakson twice previously co-sponsored the legislation, which was introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
Bill would restore the efficacy of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
Publish Date: 2015-04-25
Click here to view related Website: US SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKON
PoliticalNews.me - Apr 25,2015 - Isakson,
Perdue Co-sponsor Legislation to Empower
States to Challenge Federal Government Rules
Bill would restore the efficacy of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and David Perdue, R-Ga., co-sponsored legislation this week to ensure state governments are empowered to challenge federal regulations that are constitutionally questionable or burdensome.
The Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, S.1045, sets up a framework that would provide states with legal standing and a legal framework for challenging unconstitutional federal regulations and executive orders before they go into effect.
“Considering the consistent overreach by the Obama administration, this is commonsense legislation to help ensure that the 10th Amendment to our Constitution isn’t just a suggestion, but the absolute law,” said Isakson. “Our country was built on keeping government close to the people by allowing them to make decisions at the state and local level, and the powers given to the federal government delineated in the Constitution are supposed to be minimal. This legislation would help return us to the framework laid out by the Founding Fathers.”
“Georgians are disgusted with Washington’s ridiculous overreach into every area of their lives. After six years of the Obama administration ruling by executive order and regulatory overreach, we must empower our states with the opportunity to challenge egregious government overreach,” said Perdue. “Protecting the 10th Amendment is an important step in fixing the Constitutional crisis our country faces.”
Previous rulings on the issue of a state suing the federal government by the Supreme Court have been inconsistent. In their ruling on Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court stated that congressional authorization to challenge a federal action is “of critical importance to the standing inquiry.” This legislation seeks to offer legislative guidance.
Under the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, states could challenge a rule using the following steps:
State official submits legal brief to federal agency. The state official submits a legal brief to the relevant agency head challenging the rule (on 10th Amendment grounds) during the public commenting period.
Federal agency posts brief on its website. The agency must post the brief on the front page of the agency’s website so that it is immediately noticeable.
Federal agency gives notice to other states. Within 15 days after the state official submits the brief, the agency must give notice of the brief to designated officials for each state.
Federal agency certifies that the rule does not violate the 10th Amendment. Within 15 days after posting the brief, the agency head must certify in writing that the rule does not violate the 10th Amendment and provide the legal reasoning supporting the same.
Federal agency posts certification on its website. The agency must post the certification on its website alongside the state’s legal brief.
State official may now file suit against the federal agency. The official may file in the district court where his/her place of business is located.
Courts shall grant expedited appeal upon request. Should the official file a notice of appeal, the appellate court shall grant expedited review of a decision.
Isakson twice previously co-sponsored the legislation, which was introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
Negative Liberties, the Constitution and Health Care
by; Jerry Todd and Jim Coles III
InfoWars.com has resurrected a 2001 public radio interview Barack Obama did in which he discussed his understanding of the Constitution. According to him, it’s a “charter of negative liberties,” which the Founding Fathers filled with constraints. Even worse, from Obama’s viewpoint is that the United States Supreme Court, despite Roosevelt’s, Carter’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, and Clinton’s best efforts, was never successfully able to reframe the Constitution into a redistributive document:The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. . . . [It] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way — that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.I always knew Obama was not exactly pro-Constitution even though he swore a solemn oath “to protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” “In 2009, one of the saddest Kremlin reports we’ve ever read stated that during President Obama’s meeting with President Medvedev at the Asia-Pacific summit of APEC Nations in Singapore, the American leader when asked his thoughts on Prime Minister Putin’s warning that the United States should cease its march towards socialism replied, “It doesn’t matter since for all intent and purposes the US Constitution is dead.”” http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1299.htm Has he done one thing during his time in office that runs counter to his feelings and attitude? It reflects through all the actions of the Democrat Congress and the bills prepared by outsiders for foisting on the American citizen. Primary among these is the 2,700 page Affordable Care Act that Nancy Pelosi said, “…we must pass so we can see what’s in it.”Obama’s objection to the Constitution’s “charter of negative liberties” is demonstrated in the Affordable Care Act where the bill is loaded with “what the government CAN do on our behalf.”This is a bill so fraught with government overreach, poison pills and special privileges for select groups such as Muslims that it can never work efficiently, economically, morally or in the interests of the broader population. The law is so bad, the Congress was quick to exempt itself from its dictum's. Negative Liberties in Health Care In the spirit of the negative liberties that prevent the government from bureaucratic overreach while minimizing corruption, a few of us have devised a Repeal and Replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act. We believe it can be developed in a range of 20 to 100 pages in length. That is well within reach of current legislation sponsored by Senator Rand Paul requiring the reading of all bills by Congress before passage. This has been impossible with the ACA and immigration bills among others that are usually loaded with riders and unrelated attachments..
© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Negative Liberties, the Constitution and Health Care For our health care system to survive in the interests of the population as a whole, a simplified version with its own negative liberties must be enacted as soon as possible. Here is a summary of“negative liberties” as applied to health care;Repeal and Replace – An Easy Replacement for Obamacare Any health care plan must have more than a political foundation, but one that parallels the astounding success of the American economy because of its Founding Principles. Any program dominated by the Federal government, costs up to $4 in taxes and new national debt for every$1 that reaches the one in need (Source – National Association of Life Underwriters) A summary of a complete health care plan that can be easily fleshed out in 20 to 100 pages1) Mandates. All Federal requirements for inclusion in health care policies are hereby repealed.2) The decision to purchase health insurance is an individual choice 3) Employers have a choice to provide health insurance as part of employee benefit programs. 4) The cost of health care insurance benefits provided shall be exempt from taxation of any kind.5) The provision of health insurance is a commercial activity, including health savings accounts to be managed by the individual states with these exceptions:a) Reciprocity. Each state must recognize insurance policies purchased in other states.b) Citizens/residents of any state may purchase health insurance in any state.c) The US Department of Commerce shall not regulate the processes and procedures. 6) Consumers may choose health care insurance ala-carte costed-out on an individual basis.7) Types of health insurance policies.a) Minimal insurance to cover emergency medical treatment.b) Well care plus emergency medical care.c) Basic general plans to cover well care, emergency medical care and routine ongoing medical treatments including doctor office visits, testing, and follow up care.d) Insurance companies may offer limited, temporary insurance at the catastrophic care level. 8) The regulatory process is a state, not a Federal responsibility) Federal funding of medical care cannot efficiently, compassionately or economically accomplish optimum care of the individual except as a last resort under major medical and catastrophic care.10) All health care-health service providers shall provide lifesaving treatments in emergency situations whether the patient has health insurance or not.11) The patient shall be fully responsible to pay for compensating the health care provider for services rendered.12) Religious and fraternal institutions will not be discouraged from covering such treatment costs, including paying for such services to a third party provider. 13) Medical professionals and institutions along with family or community care givers may not be prohibited from providing pro bono services to the helpless and indigent.
2© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Negative Liberties, the Constitution and Health Care 14) Tort Reform - Americans longing to return to excellence, accessibility, and affordability in health care will emulate the positive effects tort reform has on malpractice liability in the state of Texas. 15) Individuals and families benefiting from emergency and healing care paid by others will be encouraged/required to compensate or “pay it forward” to the benefit of others in a like situation.16) Matters of Faith - No health care provider, and no resident of the United States shall be compelled to provide services or to participate in a health care program that the individual says violates his or her beliefs. 17) No individual or institution shall be required to violate their respect for or belief in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. 18) Alternatives to commercial health insurance - Communal, religious affiliated, specialized group, or collective assurance associations may develop and operate membership health care programs, as allowed by laws of the state wherein formed. These plans shall have the same force and full reciprocity among the States. Medical care functions best with a philosophy of love and responsibility for the welfare of others."It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788 Does a 2,700 page Obamacare bill fit this description? We must do better.
3© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Negative Liberties, the Constitution and Health Care For our health care system to survive in the interests of the population as a whole, a simplified version with its own negative liberties must be enacted as soon as possible. Here is a summary of“negative liberties” as applied to health care;Repeal and Replace – An Easy Replacement for Obamacare Any health care plan must have more than a political foundation, but one that parallels the astounding success of the American economy because of its Founding Principles. Any program dominated by the Federal government, costs up to $4 in taxes and new national debt for every$1 that reaches the one in need (Source – National Association of Life Underwriters) A summary of a complete health care plan that can be easily fleshed out in 20 to 100 pages1) Mandates. All Federal requirements for inclusion in health care policies are hereby repealed.2) The decision to purchase health insurance is an individual choice 3) Employers have a choice to provide health insurance as part of employee benefit programs. 4) The cost of health care insurance benefits provided shall be exempt from taxation of any kind.5) The provision of health insurance is a commercial activity, including health savings accounts to be managed by the individual states with these exceptions:a) Reciprocity. Each state must recognize insurance policies purchased in other states.b) Citizens/residents of any state may purchase health insurance in any state.c) The US Department of Commerce shall not regulate the processes and procedures. 6) Consumers may choose health care insurance ala-carte costed-out on an individual basis.7) Types of health insurance policies.a) Minimal insurance to cover emergency medical treatment.b) Well care plus emergency medical care.c) Basic general plans to cover well care, emergency medical care and routine ongoing medical treatments including doctor office visits, testing, and follow up care.d) Insurance companies may offer limited, temporary insurance at the catastrophic care level. 8) The regulatory process is a state, not a Federal responsibility) Federal funding of medical care cannot efficiently, compassionately or economically accomplish optimum care of the individual except as a last resort under major medical and catastrophic care.10) All health care-health service providers shall provide lifesaving treatments in emergency situations whether the patient has health insurance or not.11) The patient shall be fully responsible to pay for compensating the health care provider for services rendered.12) Religious and fraternal institutions will not be discouraged from covering such treatment costs, including paying for such services to a third party provider. 13) Medical professionals and institutions along with family or community care givers may not be prohibited from providing pro bono services to the helpless and indigent.
2© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Negative Liberties, the Constitution and Health Care 14) Tort Reform - Americans longing to return to excellence, accessibility, and affordability in health care will emulate the positive effects tort reform has on malpractice liability in the state of Texas. 15) Individuals and families benefiting from emergency and healing care paid by others will be encouraged/required to compensate or “pay it forward” to the benefit of others in a like situation.16) Matters of Faith - No health care provider, and no resident of the United States shall be compelled to provide services or to participate in a health care program that the individual says violates his or her beliefs. 17) No individual or institution shall be required to violate their respect for or belief in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. 18) Alternatives to commercial health insurance - Communal, religious affiliated, specialized group, or collective assurance associations may develop and operate membership health care programs, as allowed by laws of the state wherein formed. These plans shall have the same force and full reciprocity among the States. Medical care functions best with a philosophy of love and responsibility for the welfare of others."It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788 Does a 2,700 page Obamacare bill fit this description? We must do better.
3© 2015 Gerald V. Todd and James Coles III Guest Editorials www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
Statue of Liberty
This was written by Rosemary LaBonte to the editors of a California newspaper in response to an article written by Ernie Lujan who suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the immigrants of today aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry. The paper never printed this response, so her husband sent it out via internet.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.
Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET.
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET.
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!
AND
Trust Me! Says the Government!
Truth be told Lady Boots deserves the vast majority of the credit for this piece.
Trust me! Says the government!
Part 1.
Ah, those two Simple words.
They are supposed to evoke a feeling. A deep and comforting feeling that all will be taken care of and we don't have to worry about anything. Trust Me!...the words the proverbial Spider said to the Fly., The Wolf said to the Sheep while dressed in like-skin, Our Government says to us as they give and take with both hands at the same time and promise and lie in the same breath. Do you begin to see a pattern here?
The Government 'controllers', the national mouthpieces, continually use platitudes and meaningless sound bites that twist people's minds into believing that the govt. is actually working for them. The Classic statement is; "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." uttered to allay our fears and stifle our common sense. No mention of the strings attached, no mention of loss of self direction-determination-independence and self-sufficiency, no mention of the traditional freedoms and liberties that will be forever lost.
Look at these examples of our "BENIGN and BENEVOLENT" govt. help so far;
Welfare.
Has trapped generations of people into being thralls to the system so that they and their families can just survive on subsistence level standards. The hand out without the hand up. Where is the strength of method and message to better educate and/or train people to work for a better lot in life. A reliant people is a subservient people. Without the hand up a people on their knees will have no courage to bite the hand that feeds them. What possible motive would a government have to create such a needful and ever growing class of citizenry? These people, trapped/enslaved in the system registering their names to welfare rolls, must keep voting for the representatives that will continue the handouts. They then can improve their lot in life by having a larger family, more names to qualify and quantify larger free benefits, each, dependent on the government that supports them, which perpetuates the need for a growing 'benign and benevolent' system.
A vicious cycle.
Department of Homeland Security;
A federal department, forbidden from "PROFILING" enemies of America because of some cockamamie Politically Correct Ideology excused feebly on the childish mentality that it might hurt someones feelings. Not only does that negate and infringe on our First Amendment Right to freedom of Speech, it lessens our Security. Opposition speech is allowed in this Nation today....selectively. The free media has become the state media, in the most frightening of evolutions, it has become the mouthpiece of liberal government, not the honest and equally unbiased broker the Fifth Estate was intended to be. Franklin was right when he said 'anyone who trades freedom for security... deserves neither. ' They also end up having neither.
Department of Education.
Common Core. Common Core is the core of social engineering and the tax funded vehicle by which government commandeers our children's minds. Government that helps...also molds. Government that protects....also restricts. Government that provides....also can withhold. Bringing up every school child up to a proficiency level in school that requires the definition of a government standard. Government designs how and what our children will learn, bribing that effort by holding the purse strings of federal education dollars. Study of Common Core will lead you to implementation of UN Propaganda into the AMERICAN education system, guaranteeing and intending to put American Education on the third world education levels....and below the level once known as AMERICAN excellence.
Internet Neutrality;
The current and most invasive and far reaching catch phrase for restricting political Free Speech, yet. If we as citizens don't have the right to express our dissenting opinion through expression of free speech, we are not free. The current president's liberal-progressive party engages in platitudes and arm twisting, yet has not succeeded in getting the saner minds in Congress to create laws espoused to block dissenting speech. But the former Speaker of the US Senate, Harry Reid, holding one if the highest political offices in the land has strongly advocated for exactly that. Beware of 'TRUSTING' a party-in-power political Administration which controls the government agency-FCC. Plans have been formulated to reclassify the Internet as a "Public Utility". Take the free reins of citizen social networking and expression, the dissemination of information potential, and saddle it with rules and regulations that were obsolete back in the 1930's soon after they were invented and enacted by another Progressive Administration. Progressive does not mean progress, progressives espouse recessive and backward political theory. Freedom is an advancement in every historic example and concept.
Minimum Wage;
The Government also says "Trust Me, I'll Increase The Minimum Wage And Put Everyone Above The Poverty Line;
This is the biggest Oxymoronic Lie the Government Progressive Faction spouts to curry favor (think votes) from the downtrodden poor. This fallacy is wrong on two levels or more. How can someone be above the poverty line when it constantly changes due to fluctuations in the economy? The Poverty Level is a line drawn arbitrarily between those who make enough to live and those who make less than that.
We know it's Political Rhetoric for the purpose of misleading the public into believing the faction promoting this idiocy is on their side. You may disagree with this but let me lay it out for you.
Would a law like that really help the poor? Conversely, will it end up hurting them and pushing them back farther? I hold with the second line of thought. I do that because most likely it will cause small businesses to lay off workers they can't afford. That in turn takes money out of the economy and hurts other businesses creating lower profits to pay employees and facilitates further layoffs. To offset this many businesses go to part time help to lower their outlays.
Think of how many small businesses employ unskilled poor as workers. Sure it looks good to them to see a 50% increase in their wages but what they don't see is the inevitable increase in prices. So what exactly have they gained? They're being paid more and think they can afford to buy more, but the increases in prices actually make them capable of buying less because of lost purchasing power. Being able to buy less of the necessities puts them in a worse position than they were before the Minimum wage.
When Politicians say they are trying to pass this type of Legislation they are actually doing one of two things; They are deliberately proposing fiscally irresponsible legislation knowing it won't pass so they look good to their voter base, or they have the ability to point the finger at the level headed politicians, maligning them as haters that don't care about the plight of the poor. Either way it is self serving legislation. They also do this when Taxes are cut on business, totally ignoring the fact that with lower taxes and less idiotic regulations that only benefit the Crony Capitalists business has more money to hire people into better jobs that increase the economy.
List Goes on...and on...
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
Support a States Petitioned for Article V Amendment Proposal Convention so the People again have the say in how Government goes about it's business.
PART 2. History of the 'Rise of the Progressives in American Government.
"BENIGN and BENEVOLENT Help" from the Government, lets take a look at the history of the Progressives over the last American Century because they are the standard bearer and the advocate of government largess and intrusion. They are the erosion of the free and independent sovereign spirit.
When the progressive faction has won the opportunity through election cycles to run the government they gain when times are hard or distressed. They never let a crisis go to waste and take advantage to become stronger when weakness exists. Such weakness has happened in times of war, in times of monetary and economic crisis, in times of social unrest. Each time the manner of their advantage comes to us through a simplistic approach, their answer always promises solutions to make all the people 'feel good'.
They use the guise of true understanding, they share the plight of the poorer of our American brethren, they have the honest sentiment and commitment to move heaven and earth to help them out of poverty. Theirs are the 'trusted' solutions without ulterior motive or selfish gain involved. We need to seriously ask ourselves, if after decades of the 'progressive experiment and programming' in a America...have they succeeded? Are we as people better off? Is our Nation stronger and more resilient? NO THEY HAVE NOT, NO WE ARE NOT! In fact, today we have a higher percentage of people below the poverty line and on Government subsistence than at any other time in our history. That startling fact includes the Great Depression.
Progressive 'catch phrases' always run along these lines...decade after decade. Big Government can...Eliminate Poverty, Guarantee Equality for Everyone, and always Supports Equal Justice.
Now lets look at the actual accomplishments;
When in power, they have created entitlement program after entitlement program with the advertised goal of eliminating poverty...but poverty still exists and flourishes. Create equality...yet they build upon equality they socially engineer and encourage. Our Justice Department...chooses the just and unjust, blind where it chooses to be blind and sees injustice where it's chooses to find it. Many and growing examples grace our nightly news reports and glare black and white in our printed news media.
Recipients of free government programs, dependent on the Government handouts, the unequal and unjust mentality breeds resentment and fear in identified voting classes. Such targeted groups feel compelled and are convinced that in order to correct or improve their status through envy or anger they will keep voting for the very oppressors that use them for political advantage every election cycle just to survive. They never intend for things to truly get better, they depend on a reliant voter, their own class of political slave.
Look at the Welfare rolls, it's estimated that about 48% of Americans are on some form of government subsistence. Big government greedily and purposefully enacts laws and promotes regulations that stifle meaningful and sustainable jobs in the current environment and that would build for the future, crippling the ways and the means for people to manage to rise and stand on their own once again.
Equality for women and minorities are their favorite tricks to pull out of their hat....especially when they get their failing policies exposed to honest criticism. Women and minorities should be offended that they think such are too uneducated or are so blindly and single mindedly simple and easily manipulated. How many women have truly broken the glass ceiling? How many minorities have been properly educated and trained for the top level jobs? There are many but they are not highlighted. They do not fit into their narrative and in fact, counterpoint it. These they paint as the excessive opportunists, the Elitist Crony Capitalist business man or woman who sold out to the system In order to achieve self gain. They are the anomaly. And the system by which they bettered themselves, a free and open market that could provide these same things to the population at large, they seek through Government intervention snd biased laws and regulations to destroy. Strong people, strong nations with strong and vibrant economies have no need for Big a Government programs and intervention.
'Equal Justice' has not been supported for decades. Instead the concept has been replaced by promotion of the fallacy of 'Social Justice'. Much greater latitude, potential and possibility to use spin and propaganda to urge the people toward the politics of envy. Separate by introduction or support of naturally and small examples of conflict...then fan the flames of it, co-opt it to suit a hidden agenda.
These shameful promotions by shameful promoters change this week to next week and become oppressive in sentiment and impressive with repetition. Many fall victim to the concept and feeling that there are the privileged and the underprivileged, the haves and the have not's of the population, you can trace the birth of this idea straight back to the birth of the progressive political class in our country. It's a sham, an idea that only becomes reality when it is embraced. Like all power it is only illusion that becomes reality with the power of its adoption. Combine this with the active and aggressive campaign of the current political Ideology that thinks it can selectively enforce the Constitutional laws that it favors, while ignoring the Constitutional laws it knows are a threat to it's growing and usurping power?
Despite all that, I feel that we actually can 'Trust' Government. If we remember the concept of how truly representative republican government is supposed to work.
Remember that 'Government' is empowered and directed by We The People. We are the highest authority in the land. We have the power to change what we see or do not like. We still have the power to our own self-determination. We have the power to the stolen powers the Progressives and every professional politicians in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Administrations of both parties that have been stolen from the people.
The power of our vote used to be the greater leveler, no longer. Fraud, gerrymandering, political influence and lobbying have stolen the honesty of elections in the United States. Political parties have been infiltrated with Progressive doctrine to the point that their only difference between them is the name, the icon, and the initial. The Founders and the Framers feared the government we have allowed today and were inspired when drafting our Constitution to place within it the method for correction. The Constitutional way is Article V and the people living in their States to petitioned for Amendment to restore the original Constitution through limited Proposal at Convention.
The Constitution would never have been ratified by the original States without the Bill of Rights. Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights, too many to list, but the Bill Of Rights enumerates the specific rights that a national government may not infringe upon. The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT. In the middle, the 1864 Congress sought to give that re-constructionist government the power to limit the people and the States. 'No State Shall', three words took the power of enumeration and assumed the national government would make that definition going forward. Henceforth, the deliberate design would enhance the non-enumerated powers of the Congress, interpret in such a manner the reversal of the original intent of the Constitution to limit the Federal/Central government, and has used every usurpation against the States rights ever since the end of the Civil War!
Congress alone has called for Amendments using the Article V provision, and have only used it to their benefit on every occasion. It's the people's turn to act Constitutionally, through their own State Legislatures to begin the hard work of correcting the decades of usurpations. Restore the perfect design of our balance of governmental power to the originally enumerated powers of the three branches of Government. Repeal Amendments with one amendment and take back the power and power to tax which finances the political body that starves our Nation and has consistently overstepped it's authority and moral dictates. If 38 States petitioned for a convention and it is called, Congress will have absolutely no say on the wording or content of any proposed Amendments.
Some may be hesitant because of the plethora of mis-information disseminated by the mouth pieces of the establishment, who spout incorrect information about the supposed "Dangers" of a limited Article V Convention. They have ran the gamut of objection, from 'It would open up the entire body of the Constitution" to "Powerful influence is pushing for this because they want to destroy the Constitution.'
First, no one responsibly trying to promote Article V would allow or suggests, "Opening Up The Body Of The Constitution for revision' or would structure such a convention with the vulnerability to "Have A Runaway Convention", that is a fear tactic and a falsehood.
The reason the Articles of the Confederation of the United States was superseded by the Constitution at the first Convention to CREATE a constitutional compact was because the Articles had no internal means to amend itself, within itself. That oversight was corrected with Article V of the Constitution. The idea of a radical faction intent on destroying the Constitution taking over the Amendment process is ludicrous. All proposed amendment language must be agreed on by the Delegates of the many and then Ratified by the 2/3 number of all of the States. There is not a single destructive force so powerfully organized in our Nation today with enough money or influence to control all the States and their Delegates. Neither can the hidden puppet masters who call the shots for their progressive puppets.
We need to trust in ourselves and the government of We The People.
Trust me! Says the government!
Part 1.
Ah, those two Simple words.
They are supposed to evoke a feeling. A deep and comforting feeling that all will be taken care of and we don't have to worry about anything. Trust Me!...the words the proverbial Spider said to the Fly., The Wolf said to the Sheep while dressed in like-skin, Our Government says to us as they give and take with both hands at the same time and promise and lie in the same breath. Do you begin to see a pattern here?
The Government 'controllers', the national mouthpieces, continually use platitudes and meaningless sound bites that twist people's minds into believing that the govt. is actually working for them. The Classic statement is; "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help." uttered to allay our fears and stifle our common sense. No mention of the strings attached, no mention of loss of self direction-determination-independence and self-sufficiency, no mention of the traditional freedoms and liberties that will be forever lost.
Look at these examples of our "BENIGN and BENEVOLENT" govt. help so far;
Welfare.
Has trapped generations of people into being thralls to the system so that they and their families can just survive on subsistence level standards. The hand out without the hand up. Where is the strength of method and message to better educate and/or train people to work for a better lot in life. A reliant people is a subservient people. Without the hand up a people on their knees will have no courage to bite the hand that feeds them. What possible motive would a government have to create such a needful and ever growing class of citizenry? These people, trapped/enslaved in the system registering their names to welfare rolls, must keep voting for the representatives that will continue the handouts. They then can improve their lot in life by having a larger family, more names to qualify and quantify larger free benefits, each, dependent on the government that supports them, which perpetuates the need for a growing 'benign and benevolent' system.
A vicious cycle.
Department of Homeland Security;
A federal department, forbidden from "PROFILING" enemies of America because of some cockamamie Politically Correct Ideology excused feebly on the childish mentality that it might hurt someones feelings. Not only does that negate and infringe on our First Amendment Right to freedom of Speech, it lessens our Security. Opposition speech is allowed in this Nation today....selectively. The free media has become the state media, in the most frightening of evolutions, it has become the mouthpiece of liberal government, not the honest and equally unbiased broker the Fifth Estate was intended to be. Franklin was right when he said 'anyone who trades freedom for security... deserves neither. ' They also end up having neither.
Department of Education.
Common Core. Common Core is the core of social engineering and the tax funded vehicle by which government commandeers our children's minds. Government that helps...also molds. Government that protects....also restricts. Government that provides....also can withhold. Bringing up every school child up to a proficiency level in school that requires the definition of a government standard. Government designs how and what our children will learn, bribing that effort by holding the purse strings of federal education dollars. Study of Common Core will lead you to implementation of UN Propaganda into the AMERICAN education system, guaranteeing and intending to put American Education on the third world education levels....and below the level once known as AMERICAN excellence.
Internet Neutrality;
The current and most invasive and far reaching catch phrase for restricting political Free Speech, yet. If we as citizens don't have the right to express our dissenting opinion through expression of free speech, we are not free. The current president's liberal-progressive party engages in platitudes and arm twisting, yet has not succeeded in getting the saner minds in Congress to create laws espoused to block dissenting speech. But the former Speaker of the US Senate, Harry Reid, holding one if the highest political offices in the land has strongly advocated for exactly that. Beware of 'TRUSTING' a party-in-power political Administration which controls the government agency-FCC. Plans have been formulated to reclassify the Internet as a "Public Utility". Take the free reins of citizen social networking and expression, the dissemination of information potential, and saddle it with rules and regulations that were obsolete back in the 1930's soon after they were invented and enacted by another Progressive Administration. Progressive does not mean progress, progressives espouse recessive and backward political theory. Freedom is an advancement in every historic example and concept.
Minimum Wage;
The Government also says "Trust Me, I'll Increase The Minimum Wage And Put Everyone Above The Poverty Line;
This is the biggest Oxymoronic Lie the Government Progressive Faction spouts to curry favor (think votes) from the downtrodden poor. This fallacy is wrong on two levels or more. How can someone be above the poverty line when it constantly changes due to fluctuations in the economy? The Poverty Level is a line drawn arbitrarily between those who make enough to live and those who make less than that.
We know it's Political Rhetoric for the purpose of misleading the public into believing the faction promoting this idiocy is on their side. You may disagree with this but let me lay it out for you.
Would a law like that really help the poor? Conversely, will it end up hurting them and pushing them back farther? I hold with the second line of thought. I do that because most likely it will cause small businesses to lay off workers they can't afford. That in turn takes money out of the economy and hurts other businesses creating lower profits to pay employees and facilitates further layoffs. To offset this many businesses go to part time help to lower their outlays.
Think of how many small businesses employ unskilled poor as workers. Sure it looks good to them to see a 50% increase in their wages but what they don't see is the inevitable increase in prices. So what exactly have they gained? They're being paid more and think they can afford to buy more, but the increases in prices actually make them capable of buying less because of lost purchasing power. Being able to buy less of the necessities puts them in a worse position than they were before the Minimum wage.
When Politicians say they are trying to pass this type of Legislation they are actually doing one of two things; They are deliberately proposing fiscally irresponsible legislation knowing it won't pass so they look good to their voter base, or they have the ability to point the finger at the level headed politicians, maligning them as haters that don't care about the plight of the poor. Either way it is self serving legislation. They also do this when Taxes are cut on business, totally ignoring the fact that with lower taxes and less idiotic regulations that only benefit the Crony Capitalists business has more money to hire people into better jobs that increase the economy.
List Goes on...and on...
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
Support a States Petitioned for Article V Amendment Proposal Convention so the People again have the say in how Government goes about it's business.
PART 2. History of the 'Rise of the Progressives in American Government.
"BENIGN and BENEVOLENT Help" from the Government, lets take a look at the history of the Progressives over the last American Century because they are the standard bearer and the advocate of government largess and intrusion. They are the erosion of the free and independent sovereign spirit.
When the progressive faction has won the opportunity through election cycles to run the government they gain when times are hard or distressed. They never let a crisis go to waste and take advantage to become stronger when weakness exists. Such weakness has happened in times of war, in times of monetary and economic crisis, in times of social unrest. Each time the manner of their advantage comes to us through a simplistic approach, their answer always promises solutions to make all the people 'feel good'.
They use the guise of true understanding, they share the plight of the poorer of our American brethren, they have the honest sentiment and commitment to move heaven and earth to help them out of poverty. Theirs are the 'trusted' solutions without ulterior motive or selfish gain involved. We need to seriously ask ourselves, if after decades of the 'progressive experiment and programming' in a America...have they succeeded? Are we as people better off? Is our Nation stronger and more resilient? NO THEY HAVE NOT, NO WE ARE NOT! In fact, today we have a higher percentage of people below the poverty line and on Government subsistence than at any other time in our history. That startling fact includes the Great Depression.
Progressive 'catch phrases' always run along these lines...decade after decade. Big Government can...Eliminate Poverty, Guarantee Equality for Everyone, and always Supports Equal Justice.
Now lets look at the actual accomplishments;
When in power, they have created entitlement program after entitlement program with the advertised goal of eliminating poverty...but poverty still exists and flourishes. Create equality...yet they build upon equality they socially engineer and encourage. Our Justice Department...chooses the just and unjust, blind where it chooses to be blind and sees injustice where it's chooses to find it. Many and growing examples grace our nightly news reports and glare black and white in our printed news media.
Recipients of free government programs, dependent on the Government handouts, the unequal and unjust mentality breeds resentment and fear in identified voting classes. Such targeted groups feel compelled and are convinced that in order to correct or improve their status through envy or anger they will keep voting for the very oppressors that use them for political advantage every election cycle just to survive. They never intend for things to truly get better, they depend on a reliant voter, their own class of political slave.
Look at the Welfare rolls, it's estimated that about 48% of Americans are on some form of government subsistence. Big government greedily and purposefully enacts laws and promotes regulations that stifle meaningful and sustainable jobs in the current environment and that would build for the future, crippling the ways and the means for people to manage to rise and stand on their own once again.
Equality for women and minorities are their favorite tricks to pull out of their hat....especially when they get their failing policies exposed to honest criticism. Women and minorities should be offended that they think such are too uneducated or are so blindly and single mindedly simple and easily manipulated. How many women have truly broken the glass ceiling? How many minorities have been properly educated and trained for the top level jobs? There are many but they are not highlighted. They do not fit into their narrative and in fact, counterpoint it. These they paint as the excessive opportunists, the Elitist Crony Capitalist business man or woman who sold out to the system In order to achieve self gain. They are the anomaly. And the system by which they bettered themselves, a free and open market that could provide these same things to the population at large, they seek through Government intervention snd biased laws and regulations to destroy. Strong people, strong nations with strong and vibrant economies have no need for Big a Government programs and intervention.
'Equal Justice' has not been supported for decades. Instead the concept has been replaced by promotion of the fallacy of 'Social Justice'. Much greater latitude, potential and possibility to use spin and propaganda to urge the people toward the politics of envy. Separate by introduction or support of naturally and small examples of conflict...then fan the flames of it, co-opt it to suit a hidden agenda.
These shameful promotions by shameful promoters change this week to next week and become oppressive in sentiment and impressive with repetition. Many fall victim to the concept and feeling that there are the privileged and the underprivileged, the haves and the have not's of the population, you can trace the birth of this idea straight back to the birth of the progressive political class in our country. It's a sham, an idea that only becomes reality when it is embraced. Like all power it is only illusion that becomes reality with the power of its adoption. Combine this with the active and aggressive campaign of the current political Ideology that thinks it can selectively enforce the Constitutional laws that it favors, while ignoring the Constitutional laws it knows are a threat to it's growing and usurping power?
Despite all that, I feel that we actually can 'Trust' Government. If we remember the concept of how truly representative republican government is supposed to work.
Remember that 'Government' is empowered and directed by We The People. We are the highest authority in the land. We have the power to change what we see or do not like. We still have the power to our own self-determination. We have the power to the stolen powers the Progressives and every professional politicians in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Administrations of both parties that have been stolen from the people.
The power of our vote used to be the greater leveler, no longer. Fraud, gerrymandering, political influence and lobbying have stolen the honesty of elections in the United States. Political parties have been infiltrated with Progressive doctrine to the point that their only difference between them is the name, the icon, and the initial. The Founders and the Framers feared the government we have allowed today and were inspired when drafting our Constitution to place within it the method for correction. The Constitutional way is Article V and the people living in their States to petitioned for Amendment to restore the original Constitution through limited Proposal at Convention.
The Constitution would never have been ratified by the original States without the Bill of Rights. Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights, too many to list, but the Bill Of Rights enumerates the specific rights that a national government may not infringe upon. The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT. In the middle, the 1864 Congress sought to give that re-constructionist government the power to limit the people and the States. 'No State Shall', three words took the power of enumeration and assumed the national government would make that definition going forward. Henceforth, the deliberate design would enhance the non-enumerated powers of the Congress, interpret in such a manner the reversal of the original intent of the Constitution to limit the Federal/Central government, and has used every usurpation against the States rights ever since the end of the Civil War!
Congress alone has called for Amendments using the Article V provision, and have only used it to their benefit on every occasion. It's the people's turn to act Constitutionally, through their own State Legislatures to begin the hard work of correcting the decades of usurpations. Restore the perfect design of our balance of governmental power to the originally enumerated powers of the three branches of Government. Repeal Amendments with one amendment and take back the power and power to tax which finances the political body that starves our Nation and has consistently overstepped it's authority and moral dictates. If 38 States petitioned for a convention and it is called, Congress will have absolutely no say on the wording or content of any proposed Amendments.
Some may be hesitant because of the plethora of mis-information disseminated by the mouth pieces of the establishment, who spout incorrect information about the supposed "Dangers" of a limited Article V Convention. They have ran the gamut of objection, from 'It would open up the entire body of the Constitution" to "Powerful influence is pushing for this because they want to destroy the Constitution.'
First, no one responsibly trying to promote Article V would allow or suggests, "Opening Up The Body Of The Constitution for revision' or would structure such a convention with the vulnerability to "Have A Runaway Convention", that is a fear tactic and a falsehood.
The reason the Articles of the Confederation of the United States was superseded by the Constitution at the first Convention to CREATE a constitutional compact was because the Articles had no internal means to amend itself, within itself. That oversight was corrected with Article V of the Constitution. The idea of a radical faction intent on destroying the Constitution taking over the Amendment process is ludicrous. All proposed amendment language must be agreed on by the Delegates of the many and then Ratified by the 2/3 number of all of the States. There is not a single destructive force so powerfully organized in our Nation today with enough money or influence to control all the States and their Delegates. Neither can the hidden puppet masters who call the shots for their progressive puppets.
We need to trust in ourselves and the government of We The People.
Impending Loss&Control of Free Political Speech,Reliable Energy. The Elites, the FEC, the EPA and You.
America is delicately balanced on a very slippery cusp presently. It is not a question of if it will slip but when it will slip. The question is also to where will it slip? In the very near future, the people will eventually have to choose between the concept of Security and the concept of Freedom. If they don't choose soon, that choice will be stripped from them, and the opposition will impose it's self centered will on America.
We all know what that will is going to be. consider the Al Gore's and the George Soros of the world, what they have said and done so far, and extrapolate that into the very near future. We will have let the Grand American Experiment Die without a fight. At this point, the very people who are so outnumbered and are desperately trying to hold the line, are kin to the Spartans who held the pass at Thermopylae. In short we few are holding a rear guard action against what now is an overwhelming force until others can move to build a force that can oppose them with hope of success. The real question is;Will They?
At least that's what I hope for but probably won't come about. Think back and examine the past from the mid 1960s until the present to see the systematic assault those Progressive Elites have waged against the traditional Moral and honorable lifestyles America professed to have. I do have to admit that some of the things the opposition championed was necessary, but they skewed it strictly to their benefit.
Starting with the LBJ Administration during the Vietnam War the Socialist/Progressives used the horrors of war to split the nation down the middle. that is a tried and true tactic to divide and conquer, and it has worked so far. Our progressive opposition tries to cloak themselves in the mantle of a mythical Moral High Ground which they manipulate as the Elites need to consolidate their empires. Then it was the start of twisting the Constitutional concept of "Equal Justice" into the muddy waters of Social Justice.
Social Justice was used then and is still being used today to manipulate and control the masses of people that have been in all intents and purposes turned into slaves that must act in their immoral masters behalf or die of starvation. This is the complete opposite of what they profess to be doing. They profess that they are Helping those less fortunate while denying that they are the entities that caused most of them to become less fortunate and dependent on the largess of the Elite overlords.The other side that has grabbed the power and communications is in the position to do or say anything without fear of being called out on their lies. The people have been conditioned over the years to just accept their fate like there is nothing they can do to stop it.
The Opposition toady's in the Federal Elections Commission have moved to "Regulate Political ADVERTISEMENTS on the internet, with them deciding which political positions are advertisements. That way they will get around the Constitutional Right to Free Speech. Strangely enough the FEC does not have that authority do do that. Don't look to the establishment to do anything about it either because their vested interests lies in controlling the political discussions completely.
Here are the current Commissioners, notice all of Bush's appointees terms have expired;
Name Position Appointed By Sworn In TermExpires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015
Ann M. Ravel Vice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
The chances of the FEC getting their way to control Political Speech/Advertising on the net depends on if the Republicans will sell out. We must contact our Republican Representatives and also the GOP Leadership and order them to instruct the Republican commissioners to refuse to pass the new regulations for the internet.
This stealth move by the progressive controlled FEC is tantamount to what the IRS has done to the Conservative Non-Profit Groups and Conservative individuals that have run afoul of the Obama/Soros political NWO juggernaut. Recently the FEC held "Open to public hearings" where about 75% of those allowed to speak were for control. surprisingly most of those were Union controlled Democrats, or had some direct affiliation with the Progressive Socialist party.
There is another hearing coming soon and I will advise you of it. It will be critical that as many freedom loving people weigh in on it if we expect to overcome the stacked deck the progs have marched forth for their viewpoints.
The EPA is now creating conditions through Regulations that will do exactly as Obama said he would do, It will raise our energy cost to about $600 a month and saddle us with unreliable energy transmissions. They intend to shut down all the coal fired plants, not allow any Nuclear plants to come online, and relegate us to wind power and solar power sources that are totally controlled by the billionaire Elites who are backing Obama. Here are some links to the truth about what has and will happen;
Convicted felon designed EPA's playbook for faking science | WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/
https://shastalantern.net/2015/02/land-mark-evidentiary-hearing-takes-place-in-redding-ca/
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/
EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules
Is the CARB Laundering Public Funds Through Unlawful Delaware Corporation?
This is the beginning documentation on the all out attack on our Nation and it's energy production capacity that Obama promised when he said according to my plan Energy Costs will necessarily skyrocket! When energy becomes unreliable and un affordable it will cause the total collapse of our economy and the demise of America. what will come after that will make stalin's soviet Russian Gulags look like a picnic in the park.
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
We all know what that will is going to be. consider the Al Gore's and the George Soros of the world, what they have said and done so far, and extrapolate that into the very near future. We will have let the Grand American Experiment Die without a fight. At this point, the very people who are so outnumbered and are desperately trying to hold the line, are kin to the Spartans who held the pass at Thermopylae. In short we few are holding a rear guard action against what now is an overwhelming force until others can move to build a force that can oppose them with hope of success. The real question is;Will They?
At least that's what I hope for but probably won't come about. Think back and examine the past from the mid 1960s until the present to see the systematic assault those Progressive Elites have waged against the traditional Moral and honorable lifestyles America professed to have. I do have to admit that some of the things the opposition championed was necessary, but they skewed it strictly to their benefit.
Starting with the LBJ Administration during the Vietnam War the Socialist/Progressives used the horrors of war to split the nation down the middle. that is a tried and true tactic to divide and conquer, and it has worked so far. Our progressive opposition tries to cloak themselves in the mantle of a mythical Moral High Ground which they manipulate as the Elites need to consolidate their empires. Then it was the start of twisting the Constitutional concept of "Equal Justice" into the muddy waters of Social Justice.
Social Justice was used then and is still being used today to manipulate and control the masses of people that have been in all intents and purposes turned into slaves that must act in their immoral masters behalf or die of starvation. This is the complete opposite of what they profess to be doing. They profess that they are Helping those less fortunate while denying that they are the entities that caused most of them to become less fortunate and dependent on the largess of the Elite overlords.The other side that has grabbed the power and communications is in the position to do or say anything without fear of being called out on their lies. The people have been conditioned over the years to just accept their fate like there is nothing they can do to stop it.
The Opposition toady's in the Federal Elections Commission have moved to "Regulate Political ADVERTISEMENTS on the internet, with them deciding which political positions are advertisements. That way they will get around the Constitutional Right to Free Speech. Strangely enough the FEC does not have that authority do do that. Don't look to the establishment to do anything about it either because their vested interests lies in controlling the political discussions completely.
Here are the current Commissioners, notice all of Bush's appointees terms have expired;
Name Position Appointed By Sworn In TermExpires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015
Ann M. Ravel Vice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008 Expired -- serving until replaced
The chances of the FEC getting their way to control Political Speech/Advertising on the net depends on if the Republicans will sell out. We must contact our Republican Representatives and also the GOP Leadership and order them to instruct the Republican commissioners to refuse to pass the new regulations for the internet.
This stealth move by the progressive controlled FEC is tantamount to what the IRS has done to the Conservative Non-Profit Groups and Conservative individuals that have run afoul of the Obama/Soros political NWO juggernaut. Recently the FEC held "Open to public hearings" where about 75% of those allowed to speak were for control. surprisingly most of those were Union controlled Democrats, or had some direct affiliation with the Progressive Socialist party.
There is another hearing coming soon and I will advise you of it. It will be critical that as many freedom loving people weigh in on it if we expect to overcome the stacked deck the progs have marched forth for their viewpoints.
The EPA is now creating conditions through Regulations that will do exactly as Obama said he would do, It will raise our energy cost to about $600 a month and saddle us with unreliable energy transmissions. They intend to shut down all the coal fired plants, not allow any Nuclear plants to come online, and relegate us to wind power and solar power sources that are totally controlled by the billionaire Elites who are backing Obama. Here are some links to the truth about what has and will happen;
Convicted felon designed EPA's playbook for faking science | WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/
https://shastalantern.net/2015/02/land-mark-evidentiary-hearing-takes-place-in-redding-ca/
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/
EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules
Is the CARB Laundering Public Funds Through Unlawful Delaware Corporation?
This is the beginning documentation on the all out attack on our Nation and it's energy production capacity that Obama promised when he said according to my plan Energy Costs will necessarily skyrocket! When energy becomes unreliable and un affordable it will cause the total collapse of our economy and the demise of America. what will come after that will make stalin's soviet Russian Gulags look like a picnic in the park.
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
The Very Real Fear of Federally Controlled Water...and regional governance.
The Very Real Fear of Federally Controlled Water...and regional governance.
It's been one of those low snowfall winters.
It's only March and already you hear talk about water.
The less snowpack to fill our reservoirs and waterways, has every farmer, every business, and every person who depends on our main economic drivers, to become acutely aware of how this shortfall will effect our water supply.
In 2 articles I found last week, the first in Nevada, reporting on water shortages and denying water to ranchers, in order to serve the larger need of the population centers and the second speaking to the issue of farmers in California and 'federally controlled water'. The federal management agency controlling the water in their reservoirs has determined that water will not be released to them in the upcoming season for agricultural purposes. California farmers will not plant crops that they cannot irrigate.
What would such a situation do to southeastern Idaho?
There are two main INITIATIVES involved in this soon to be completed regional grant.
The scope of work, included 1. A National monument. 2. A Regional plan.
The national monument, has been a large focus of efforts I am involved in, but our concerns also extend toward the end result of this grant, a regional development and governance plan.
Both INITIATIVES speak specifically to the management/jurisdiction of our regional resources, i.e.....water.
Both INITIATIVES focus on future planning.
Both INITIATIVES in design either include a large federal component or an exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Initiative 1. A national monument in the Fremont County Island Park Caldera (exclusive federal jurisdiction)
We know under the national monument discussion in meeting notes, there was interest specific to our water. Also, the final product of this grant, The Teton View Regional Plan, calls for adoption of regional decision making concerning all of our future development and the management of our resources, including our water.
In our research many water references have been found. The 'futures study' was to have been facilitated through the Henry's Fork Watershed Council. That was a deliberate choice. Why? Two examples taken from the GY Consortium notes, where Jan Brown specifically addresses water.
"Jan said she has been asked repeatedly about objectives. She feels that the primary (but not sole) objective is the protection of the unique HYDROgeological resources."
"....it (a national monument that would) still protects geothermal resources but even more so our own springs that feed our aquifer. 25% of the Snake River system generates up there from snowfall. The aquifer system for the entire southern Idaho agricultural economy relies on these natural features. Why not have A NATIONAL MONUMENT that not only PRESERVES and recognizes the water resources but allows us to develop economic resources? "
Jan Brown in the AUGUST 2013 consortium notes.
This is in fact, the same meeting where the vote was taken to re-task the Fremont County portion of the grant funding toward a 'futures study' initiative for an IPC national monument.
'PRESERVES' is a very concerning term.
Under the Antiquities Act, the President has the power to protect, PRESERVE, and declare.
What if, within a new designation/federal withdrawal of our state/county lands, the president, declares and preserves THE WATER ITSELF? The national monument INITIATIVE, hidden and set in motion through grant activity is of grave future concern.
Initiative 2. A regional plan (a federal jurisdictional component role)
The grant has not been administered or funded exclusively through HUD, it is also jointly administered/funded/and directed by the EPA and DOT, joining HUD. Three powerful federal agencies.
It is the end result of the grant that is our immediate concern. It is a plan for regional governance that we are being presented and asked to consider. It will welcome increased federal regulation policies and determination standards, it encompasses our infrastructure and living practices, it goes far beyond the scope of housing and considers governing our resources, including the vital resource of our water.
How would regional planning do this? It creates a new layer of governance. A regional non-elected board, (a Council of Governance -COG), will serve as the conduit between local and federal, and would have tremendous control over all of our future choices.
Local and county communities depend on grants for all of their other non-tax revenues. Such a governing board (the COG) would oversee and determine grant applications, dispersement, availability, compliance and the regulatory process associated with all regional grant awards. Those possibilities are dependent upon the regional governance plan we accept into our counties, our communities, our homes. Compliance=Reward.
We have a very important decision as independent counties to make, concerning public review and the VOLUNTARY adoption of the Teton View Regional Plan. We never asked for this. We thought we were getting 1.5 million dollars to improve our communities. We need to ask and get answers to some very important questions as this plan is presented to us.
Who authored this regional plan?
Our county comprehensive plans promise that WE will participate in all decisions and planning practices in our counties BEFORE any amendments or replacements are offered.
Who developed the framework of this regional plan?
If this is indeed founded on the GY Framework, that has served as the foundation of this grant, it was developed by the now dissolved Yellowstone Business Partnership (YBP), executive director Jan Brown, and 70 conservationist/environmentalist partners and collaborative groups, working with that NGO ( nongovernmental organization) to develop it.
Where did the initiative to regionally 'design us' come from?
Very good question.
We never asked for this, nor did we invite this into our counties.
According to HUD, Jan Brown brought this grant to Fremont County to submit for application. According to Heather Higgenbotham, also of the dissolved YBP, HUD invited them to partner in the grant?
I completely reject the premise of any plan that intends to have someone? From somewhere? hand us a PLAN that violates, by not including us in its development, our current county comprehensive plans. Replace those plans that we have in place, that WE had a vital role in and have adopted, for a new one that someone else has written which will re-define how we live.
Public participation is supposed to be a requirement at every level of the grant process.
County planners and hand picked advisory committees do not constitute PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Reservations were raised to grant administration about neglect of this component, but were ignored. It is a vital omission that deserves to be challenged.
A story in itself.
We did not build this, no matter how professionally it is rolled out and presented to look like we did.
It's adoption is voluntary.
We can, and should, JUST SAY NO.
The Very Real Fear of Federally Controlled Water....or of federally controlled regional governance and planning, we should ABSOLUTELY reject.
I was given the brochure of the regional plan roll-out, it is very professionally done. On the cover it reads...
"The Teton View Regional Plan.....Because we lead regional lives"....
We already support and cooperate with our neighbors. We have no need for an outside plan that tries to tell us how to do so, or a regional COG to mandate that for us, and most importantly we don't want it because, within the view of the Tetons
we choose to.....LEAD OUR OWN LIVES.
Thank you for reading.
Leanne Yancey
Member Caldera Heritage Coalition
It's been one of those low snowfall winters.
It's only March and already you hear talk about water.
The less snowpack to fill our reservoirs and waterways, has every farmer, every business, and every person who depends on our main economic drivers, to become acutely aware of how this shortfall will effect our water supply.
In 2 articles I found last week, the first in Nevada, reporting on water shortages and denying water to ranchers, in order to serve the larger need of the population centers and the second speaking to the issue of farmers in California and 'federally controlled water'. The federal management agency controlling the water in their reservoirs has determined that water will not be released to them in the upcoming season for agricultural purposes. California farmers will not plant crops that they cannot irrigate.
What would such a situation do to southeastern Idaho?
There are two main INITIATIVES involved in this soon to be completed regional grant.
The scope of work, included 1. A National monument. 2. A Regional plan.
The national monument, has been a large focus of efforts I am involved in, but our concerns also extend toward the end result of this grant, a regional development and governance plan.
Both INITIATIVES speak specifically to the management/jurisdiction of our regional resources, i.e.....water.
Both INITIATIVES focus on future planning.
Both INITIATIVES in design either include a large federal component or an exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Initiative 1. A national monument in the Fremont County Island Park Caldera (exclusive federal jurisdiction)
We know under the national monument discussion in meeting notes, there was interest specific to our water. Also, the final product of this grant, The Teton View Regional Plan, calls for adoption of regional decision making concerning all of our future development and the management of our resources, including our water.
In our research many water references have been found. The 'futures study' was to have been facilitated through the Henry's Fork Watershed Council. That was a deliberate choice. Why? Two examples taken from the GY Consortium notes, where Jan Brown specifically addresses water.
"Jan said she has been asked repeatedly about objectives. She feels that the primary (but not sole) objective is the protection of the unique HYDROgeological resources."
"....it (a national monument that would) still protects geothermal resources but even more so our own springs that feed our aquifer. 25% of the Snake River system generates up there from snowfall. The aquifer system for the entire southern Idaho agricultural economy relies on these natural features. Why not have A NATIONAL MONUMENT that not only PRESERVES and recognizes the water resources but allows us to develop economic resources? "
Jan Brown in the AUGUST 2013 consortium notes.
This is in fact, the same meeting where the vote was taken to re-task the Fremont County portion of the grant funding toward a 'futures study' initiative for an IPC national monument.
'PRESERVES' is a very concerning term.
Under the Antiquities Act, the President has the power to protect, PRESERVE, and declare.
What if, within a new designation/federal withdrawal of our state/county lands, the president, declares and preserves THE WATER ITSELF? The national monument INITIATIVE, hidden and set in motion through grant activity is of grave future concern.
Initiative 2. A regional plan (a federal jurisdictional component role)
The grant has not been administered or funded exclusively through HUD, it is also jointly administered/funded/and directed by the EPA and DOT, joining HUD. Three powerful federal agencies.
It is the end result of the grant that is our immediate concern. It is a plan for regional governance that we are being presented and asked to consider. It will welcome increased federal regulation policies and determination standards, it encompasses our infrastructure and living practices, it goes far beyond the scope of housing and considers governing our resources, including the vital resource of our water.
How would regional planning do this? It creates a new layer of governance. A regional non-elected board, (a Council of Governance -COG), will serve as the conduit between local and federal, and would have tremendous control over all of our future choices.
Local and county communities depend on grants for all of their other non-tax revenues. Such a governing board (the COG) would oversee and determine grant applications, dispersement, availability, compliance and the regulatory process associated with all regional grant awards. Those possibilities are dependent upon the regional governance plan we accept into our counties, our communities, our homes. Compliance=Reward.
We have a very important decision as independent counties to make, concerning public review and the VOLUNTARY adoption of the Teton View Regional Plan. We never asked for this. We thought we were getting 1.5 million dollars to improve our communities. We need to ask and get answers to some very important questions as this plan is presented to us.
Who authored this regional plan?
Our county comprehensive plans promise that WE will participate in all decisions and planning practices in our counties BEFORE any amendments or replacements are offered.
Who developed the framework of this regional plan?
If this is indeed founded on the GY Framework, that has served as the foundation of this grant, it was developed by the now dissolved Yellowstone Business Partnership (YBP), executive director Jan Brown, and 70 conservationist/environmentalist partners and collaborative groups, working with that NGO ( nongovernmental organization) to develop it.
Where did the initiative to regionally 'design us' come from?
Very good question.
We never asked for this, nor did we invite this into our counties.
According to HUD, Jan Brown brought this grant to Fremont County to submit for application. According to Heather Higgenbotham, also of the dissolved YBP, HUD invited them to partner in the grant?
I completely reject the premise of any plan that intends to have someone? From somewhere? hand us a PLAN that violates, by not including us in its development, our current county comprehensive plans. Replace those plans that we have in place, that WE had a vital role in and have adopted, for a new one that someone else has written which will re-define how we live.
Public participation is supposed to be a requirement at every level of the grant process.
County planners and hand picked advisory committees do not constitute PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Reservations were raised to grant administration about neglect of this component, but were ignored. It is a vital omission that deserves to be challenged.
A story in itself.
We did not build this, no matter how professionally it is rolled out and presented to look like we did.
It's adoption is voluntary.
We can, and should, JUST SAY NO.
The Very Real Fear of Federally Controlled Water....or of federally controlled regional governance and planning, we should ABSOLUTELY reject.
I was given the brochure of the regional plan roll-out, it is very professionally done. On the cover it reads...
"The Teton View Regional Plan.....Because we lead regional lives"....
We already support and cooperate with our neighbors. We have no need for an outside plan that tries to tell us how to do so, or a regional COG to mandate that for us, and most importantly we don't want it because, within the view of the Tetons
we choose to.....LEAD OUR OWN LIVES.
Thank you for reading.
Leanne Yancey
Member Caldera Heritage Coalition
IN A COMBINED EFFORT WITH
The Courts, the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment
Here is another joint effort by Ladyboots and The Tradesman;
Lets take an outsiders stab at peeling back the veil of the Court System and it's excesses;
We must try and get to the issues and problems that have arisen since the Courts have taken on much more power that originally intended for them by the Founding Fathers, and not Enumerated to them in the Constitution.
It breaks into two major categories, the Appointed Judge, and the Elected Judge. Of course, there are many many subsets within each category. The Constitution requires that Justice be equal for all. However the Progressive faction has salted the benches with their judges and even our laws for that matter, to be advanced by proponents of 'Social Justice' and ignoring the Constitutional 'Equal Justice' caveat.
The Elites also have an edge in court, since the poor usually get shoddy third rate representation from public defenders. For instance; Celebrities, CEO's Government Representatives and high profile cases who can make future political, corporate, or high profile public personality careers, get placed in the legal system, but they never face the same set of rules and attitudes that say a petty drug dealer, confidence man, or other run of the mill or poor offender faces.
Lately however, it seems that all the court systems have, is a 'catch and release' policy for those who are in the political good graces/untouchables book. On the other side of the 'Unequal Justice System' scale, there are the ones that have the book thrown at them because 'the powers that be' want to convince an 'clueless and indifferent public' that they are cracking down on crime. It has to look like they are attempting to do something. It looks like a blatant double standard to us. This is most rampantly on display during the run up to elections.
All of this is supposed to be overseen by an impartial Federal Justice Department. Consider-Fast and Furious, NSA Unconstitutional Overreach, IRS Malfeasance, Celebrity Income Tax Evasion, the equal and impartial justice system doesn't work out that way. Enforcement of all laws is Constitutionally required, not just those laws the President wants enforced. All the President can 'legally do' is set priorities, to focus on existing issues, that may concern our public safety and peace. He/she may not be blind to prejudice for or against, politics is always a game being played...but true 'Justice' is supposed to be blind to that.
On one hand, we have had the Supreme Court legislating from the bench without any Constitutional authority whatsoever. That usurpation of enumerated powers has been going on since Marbury v Madison. The subsequent courts have also ruled numerous times to strengthen and expand an amendment that was originally incorporated into the Constitution solely to insure that the freed slaves would not be stripped of their citizenship or voting rights. Unfortunately, the Congress has not seen fit to honor it's fiduciary duty to it's constituents and stop SCOTUS from doing this. That amendment strengthens and gives the power to expand Congress's and executive power too. The loss of power is to the States, and to the citizens of those States.
The Amendment in question, is the 14th Amendment. It has been used to both deny interracial marriage, and allow interracial marriage, Deny citizenship rights to babies born on American soil if neither of their parents were citizens, and reversed that ruling for political reasons in 1965 to allow citizenship rights to a baby born on American soil, of parents who were in the country illegally, and has recently allowed not only the parents but also other relatives to get a free ride into America by means of the baby's citizenship. I have a funny feeling that President Obama is going to use it as justification for his Executive order on amnesty for the Illegals in the United States.
The issues are the catalyst. They may be politically correct, politically driven, popular-unpopular, time for change-or changing with the times, or change we can or cannot believe in, run the gamut of reasoning, but they all have ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR, the become federally mandated and controlled to the States.
The 14th first denied same sex marriage, even if it was declared legal in one of the States, now it allows for same sex marriage, even if the States declare it illegal. Richard Weaver, in The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953), highlights and evaluates three types of arguments in political rhetoric: reasoning from consequences, reasoning from circumstances, and reasoning from definition. For a full and detailed dissertation on the 14th Amendment see; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html .
The next issue called into question is; What enumerated powers did the Founders invest in the Federal Courts if any?
This is what the Constitution has to say on this issue;
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
These mark the precise limits to the power of the Federal Court System, both the Supreme, and the Inferior courts that the Congress has grown and created.
These should also determine the Constitutional reasoning, whereby the courts, which have fabricated Individual Constitutional Rights since Marbury, as the authorization to overstep their authority, should they themselves be circumscribed in those areas and be returned to the original intent of the Constitution. This leads us to the mis-use of the "Due Process Clause".
The Due process clause is located in both the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. The 5th amendment states that; "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Intended to mean that the Government must have the basis of law to punish anyone and that everyone is treated equally under the law. Under the Fifth Amendment the due process clause has two aspects:
1. procedural- Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted; and
2. substantive- Substantive due process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th states; "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In 1866 Senator Jacob Howard Clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th stating;
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
This reasoning has been systematically ignored and overturned by successive Supreme Court rulings and Congressional Laws that were not overturned by the Supreme Court, ever since the 14th was ratified. Why? The answer is simple. Slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment, but the 'institution of slavery' still existed in the present lifestyle of our Nation at that time.
Prior to that when the 11th Amendment Ratified in 1795,( The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. ) Dealt with each State's Sovereign Immunity and was adopted, basically to overrule Chrisholm v Georgia Supreme Court ruling from 1793, and was used by Congress to contradict that Supreme Court ruling.
>
The 11th Amendment is critical to today's issues facing the courts and will eventually determine the validity of the concept of Nullification. There are four interpretations of the 11th.
1. Nobody can sue a State in Federal Court without the States consent
2. It permits a State to be sued by a foreign person or a person of another State but not by a resident of that State.
3. It is opposite of the second interpretation excluding suits from a resident of another State.
4. It generally it says a State can't be sued in Federal Court unless Congress takes it's sovereign immunity away.
All this boils down to the basic meaning that was meant when the 11th Amendment was ratified. That entails whether individual States are legally regarded as possessing sovereignty and complete legal independence as was believed for the first 10 years of America, or, did the Constitution allow this to continue under it when it was ratified in 1788.
This should have impacted on the Marbury decision in which the Supreme Court concocted the concept of "Judicial Review" a power that was not authorized by the constitution but instead was usurped by the Court. Instead of listing the constitutional objections to the law and returning it to Congress for Congress to fix, the court declared the law unconstitutional setting the scene for future courts to push through their private interpretations of the law and actually legislating from the bench.
This opened the door for all of the Progressive agendas that the federal Elites have used to embed their powers as basically rulers over the States and People that the federal Elites have wanted to have from the beginning when they tried to make George Washington King and ensconce themselves into power as a house of lords.
Each time, of great turmoil in our history, the elite federal philosophy takes advantage. The Civil War had torn apart our country. Freed slaves with no means, no education, no personal wealth were 'free' to make their way on soil they were brought to by no choice of their own. Free and vulnerable. Justice needed to address this. But Congress, by designing the 14th language did not address the new citizen issue, instead it limited State power, it did not make special concession for this new class of citizen, instead it limited State power and gave more power to itself, destroying the balance of power designed in the Constitution. All they needed to do was declare the freed slaves were citizens, the Constitution addressed that, instead they expanded their own power in three words, 'No State Shall'....those three words have made slaves of us all....slaves to every empowering, ever expanding, ever unlimited federal legislative, judicial and executive.
In fact, Federal judges have used the Due Process clause as a legal fiction to stop and block lawful States powers, to determine their own internal laws, i.e. when a Federal Judge wanted to do other than what a State Legislature had legislated to do. This brings us to the difference in the meaning of the "Due Process Clause" as it was intended when the 14th was ratified, and what it means as interpreted now.
With the modern mis-interpretation and mis-application of those Due Process Clauses, the Courts have grown their unconstitutional authority by 'rationalization' of the Due Process Clause. Liberty as Freedom from Moral Restraints, has come to come to be interpreted as liberty instead of being in prison. All through our history of the United States the Federal Judges have henceforth "Amended the Constitution" in flagrant disregard of Article V which is the ONLY Constitutionally approved way to amend it.
The only avenue that is both Constitutionally legal and valid to gain redress from this almost 230 years of usurpations is to use the Article V provided to us by the Founders, to address what should have been addressed that many years ago. Let the Constitution mend itself, with the process it contains, left for We The People to rediscover and use as our tool and our guide.
In the final analysis, the Constitution as written, is about the powers the people have DELEGATED to their branches of government. Somehow that has been systematically turned around by the courts, and the other two branches to determine what Our rights are Defined as. This is not only unacceptable, it is downright immoral. The people created the constitution and through it created the Federal Government. Look at the Constitution, exactly in the middle it was changed, before the 14th the original design defined the power structure of our government as THE PEOPLE-self-determining to THEIR STATE-compacted with the federal nation, after the 14th it completely reversed, it has become THE FEDERAL-dictating to the States-the allowances for the people.
As clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, that document being the moral authorization, authority, and foundation for the creation of the Constitution, and through the Constitution-the Federal Government. OUR RIGHTS predate not only the Constitution, but everything else. Our "Rights" are "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS", 'unalienable' given to every human being born on this planet. Our birthright so deemed by Our Creator. So, why would we give, or why would we allow the Federal Government leave to determine what "Rights" we are allowed to have, by whim of changing government edicts?
We The People, were blessed with leaders needed for our time, they were inspired to author the Constitution, and the Constitution was to be cherished, defended, amended only in gravest need, never altered in balance or foundational design...we were given the perfect architecture for free people and fair and balanced government. Our Constitution serves to codify and protect the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS that are under it's aegis, no document, no man, no court has the authority under Heaven or upon this earth to define or allow us our rights.
Therefore, we must endeavor to bring the Courts back into the original intent of the Constitution. 'We The People' must endeavor to Repeal the 14th Amendment which has allowed us to wander so far afield from the design of our perfect government, restore the balance of power by its repeal, and judiciously, Constitutionally restored, revisit all of the Supreme Court decisions from Marbury v Madison 1803, forward to today. We cannot change the past, but we can correct and reject that it steers our future. We must restore our Constitution, and by that bar, revisit and determine which judicial decisions are not covered by the original intent the Constitution, and the enumerated intent and the powers for the Courts.
In conclusion;
We have tried to show how the 14th Amendment has granted unenumerated powers to the Federal Government, through the machinations of the Courts, and how the Supreme Court started that long slippery slope that has carried us further from original intent, through the finding of Marbury v Madison. Since the collusion between the Judicial Branch and it's Inferior Courts, the Progressive Elitists of both parties in the Legislative Branch, and the ever growing the power to wield through both combined with the Executive Branch, acting as a Monarchy. It's up to the people now, to either unite to restore the Constitution and Republic, or give up and capitulate to the Slavery the Elites intend for us and our children.
Lets take an outsiders stab at peeling back the veil of the Court System and it's excesses;
We must try and get to the issues and problems that have arisen since the Courts have taken on much more power that originally intended for them by the Founding Fathers, and not Enumerated to them in the Constitution.
It breaks into two major categories, the Appointed Judge, and the Elected Judge. Of course, there are many many subsets within each category. The Constitution requires that Justice be equal for all. However the Progressive faction has salted the benches with their judges and even our laws for that matter, to be advanced by proponents of 'Social Justice' and ignoring the Constitutional 'Equal Justice' caveat.
The Elites also have an edge in court, since the poor usually get shoddy third rate representation from public defenders. For instance; Celebrities, CEO's Government Representatives and high profile cases who can make future political, corporate, or high profile public personality careers, get placed in the legal system, but they never face the same set of rules and attitudes that say a petty drug dealer, confidence man, or other run of the mill or poor offender faces.
Lately however, it seems that all the court systems have, is a 'catch and release' policy for those who are in the political good graces/untouchables book. On the other side of the 'Unequal Justice System' scale, there are the ones that have the book thrown at them because 'the powers that be' want to convince an 'clueless and indifferent public' that they are cracking down on crime. It has to look like they are attempting to do something. It looks like a blatant double standard to us. This is most rampantly on display during the run up to elections.
All of this is supposed to be overseen by an impartial Federal Justice Department. Consider-Fast and Furious, NSA Unconstitutional Overreach, IRS Malfeasance, Celebrity Income Tax Evasion, the equal and impartial justice system doesn't work out that way. Enforcement of all laws is Constitutionally required, not just those laws the President wants enforced. All the President can 'legally do' is set priorities, to focus on existing issues, that may concern our public safety and peace. He/she may not be blind to prejudice for or against, politics is always a game being played...but true 'Justice' is supposed to be blind to that.
On one hand, we have had the Supreme Court legislating from the bench without any Constitutional authority whatsoever. That usurpation of enumerated powers has been going on since Marbury v Madison. The subsequent courts have also ruled numerous times to strengthen and expand an amendment that was originally incorporated into the Constitution solely to insure that the freed slaves would not be stripped of their citizenship or voting rights. Unfortunately, the Congress has not seen fit to honor it's fiduciary duty to it's constituents and stop SCOTUS from doing this. That amendment strengthens and gives the power to expand Congress's and executive power too. The loss of power is to the States, and to the citizens of those States.
The Amendment in question, is the 14th Amendment. It has been used to both deny interracial marriage, and allow interracial marriage, Deny citizenship rights to babies born on American soil if neither of their parents were citizens, and reversed that ruling for political reasons in 1965 to allow citizenship rights to a baby born on American soil, of parents who were in the country illegally, and has recently allowed not only the parents but also other relatives to get a free ride into America by means of the baby's citizenship. I have a funny feeling that President Obama is going to use it as justification for his Executive order on amnesty for the Illegals in the United States.
The issues are the catalyst. They may be politically correct, politically driven, popular-unpopular, time for change-or changing with the times, or change we can or cannot believe in, run the gamut of reasoning, but they all have ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR, the become federally mandated and controlled to the States.
The 14th first denied same sex marriage, even if it was declared legal in one of the States, now it allows for same sex marriage, even if the States declare it illegal. Richard Weaver, in The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953), highlights and evaluates three types of arguments in political rhetoric: reasoning from consequences, reasoning from circumstances, and reasoning from definition. For a full and detailed dissertation on the 14th Amendment see; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html .
The next issue called into question is; What enumerated powers did the Founders invest in the Federal Courts if any?
This is what the Constitution has to say on this issue;
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
These mark the precise limits to the power of the Federal Court System, both the Supreme, and the Inferior courts that the Congress has grown and created.
These should also determine the Constitutional reasoning, whereby the courts, which have fabricated Individual Constitutional Rights since Marbury, as the authorization to overstep their authority, should they themselves be circumscribed in those areas and be returned to the original intent of the Constitution. This leads us to the mis-use of the "Due Process Clause".
The Due process clause is located in both the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. The 5th amendment states that; "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Intended to mean that the Government must have the basis of law to punish anyone and that everyone is treated equally under the law. Under the Fifth Amendment the due process clause has two aspects:
1. procedural- Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted; and
2. substantive- Substantive due process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th states; "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In 1866 Senator Jacob Howard Clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th stating;
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
This reasoning has been systematically ignored and overturned by successive Supreme Court rulings and Congressional Laws that were not overturned by the Supreme Court, ever since the 14th was ratified. Why? The answer is simple. Slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment, but the 'institution of slavery' still existed in the present lifestyle of our Nation at that time.
Prior to that when the 11th Amendment Ratified in 1795,( The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. ) Dealt with each State's Sovereign Immunity and was adopted, basically to overrule Chrisholm v Georgia Supreme Court ruling from 1793, and was used by Congress to contradict that Supreme Court ruling.
>
The 11th Amendment is critical to today's issues facing the courts and will eventually determine the validity of the concept of Nullification. There are four interpretations of the 11th.
1. Nobody can sue a State in Federal Court without the States consent
2. It permits a State to be sued by a foreign person or a person of another State but not by a resident of that State.
3. It is opposite of the second interpretation excluding suits from a resident of another State.
4. It generally it says a State can't be sued in Federal Court unless Congress takes it's sovereign immunity away.
All this boils down to the basic meaning that was meant when the 11th Amendment was ratified. That entails whether individual States are legally regarded as possessing sovereignty and complete legal independence as was believed for the first 10 years of America, or, did the Constitution allow this to continue under it when it was ratified in 1788.
This should have impacted on the Marbury decision in which the Supreme Court concocted the concept of "Judicial Review" a power that was not authorized by the constitution but instead was usurped by the Court. Instead of listing the constitutional objections to the law and returning it to Congress for Congress to fix, the court declared the law unconstitutional setting the scene for future courts to push through their private interpretations of the law and actually legislating from the bench.
This opened the door for all of the Progressive agendas that the federal Elites have used to embed their powers as basically rulers over the States and People that the federal Elites have wanted to have from the beginning when they tried to make George Washington King and ensconce themselves into power as a house of lords.
Each time, of great turmoil in our history, the elite federal philosophy takes advantage. The Civil War had torn apart our country. Freed slaves with no means, no education, no personal wealth were 'free' to make their way on soil they were brought to by no choice of their own. Free and vulnerable. Justice needed to address this. But Congress, by designing the 14th language did not address the new citizen issue, instead it limited State power, it did not make special concession for this new class of citizen, instead it limited State power and gave more power to itself, destroying the balance of power designed in the Constitution. All they needed to do was declare the freed slaves were citizens, the Constitution addressed that, instead they expanded their own power in three words, 'No State Shall'....those three words have made slaves of us all....slaves to every empowering, ever expanding, ever unlimited federal legislative, judicial and executive.
In fact, Federal judges have used the Due Process clause as a legal fiction to stop and block lawful States powers, to determine their own internal laws, i.e. when a Federal Judge wanted to do other than what a State Legislature had legislated to do. This brings us to the difference in the meaning of the "Due Process Clause" as it was intended when the 14th was ratified, and what it means as interpreted now.
With the modern mis-interpretation and mis-application of those Due Process Clauses, the Courts have grown their unconstitutional authority by 'rationalization' of the Due Process Clause. Liberty as Freedom from Moral Restraints, has come to come to be interpreted as liberty instead of being in prison. All through our history of the United States the Federal Judges have henceforth "Amended the Constitution" in flagrant disregard of Article V which is the ONLY Constitutionally approved way to amend it.
The only avenue that is both Constitutionally legal and valid to gain redress from this almost 230 years of usurpations is to use the Article V provided to us by the Founders, to address what should have been addressed that many years ago. Let the Constitution mend itself, with the process it contains, left for We The People to rediscover and use as our tool and our guide.
In the final analysis, the Constitution as written, is about the powers the people have DELEGATED to their branches of government. Somehow that has been systematically turned around by the courts, and the other two branches to determine what Our rights are Defined as. This is not only unacceptable, it is downright immoral. The people created the constitution and through it created the Federal Government. Look at the Constitution, exactly in the middle it was changed, before the 14th the original design defined the power structure of our government as THE PEOPLE-self-determining to THEIR STATE-compacted with the federal nation, after the 14th it completely reversed, it has become THE FEDERAL-dictating to the States-the allowances for the people.
As clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, that document being the moral authorization, authority, and foundation for the creation of the Constitution, and through the Constitution-the Federal Government. OUR RIGHTS predate not only the Constitution, but everything else. Our "Rights" are "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS", 'unalienable' given to every human being born on this planet. Our birthright so deemed by Our Creator. So, why would we give, or why would we allow the Federal Government leave to determine what "Rights" we are allowed to have, by whim of changing government edicts?
We The People, were blessed with leaders needed for our time, they were inspired to author the Constitution, and the Constitution was to be cherished, defended, amended only in gravest need, never altered in balance or foundational design...we were given the perfect architecture for free people and fair and balanced government. Our Constitution serves to codify and protect the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS that are under it's aegis, no document, no man, no court has the authority under Heaven or upon this earth to define or allow us our rights.
Therefore, we must endeavor to bring the Courts back into the original intent of the Constitution. 'We The People' must endeavor to Repeal the 14th Amendment which has allowed us to wander so far afield from the design of our perfect government, restore the balance of power by its repeal, and judiciously, Constitutionally restored, revisit all of the Supreme Court decisions from Marbury v Madison 1803, forward to today. We cannot change the past, but we can correct and reject that it steers our future. We must restore our Constitution, and by that bar, revisit and determine which judicial decisions are not covered by the original intent the Constitution, and the enumerated intent and the powers for the Courts.
In conclusion;
We have tried to show how the 14th Amendment has granted unenumerated powers to the Federal Government, through the machinations of the Courts, and how the Supreme Court started that long slippery slope that has carried us further from original intent, through the finding of Marbury v Madison. Since the collusion between the Judicial Branch and it's Inferior Courts, the Progressive Elitists of both parties in the Legislative Branch, and the ever growing the power to wield through both combined with the Executive Branch, acting as a Monarchy. It's up to the people now, to either unite to restore the Constitution and Republic, or give up and capitulate to the Slavery the Elites intend for us and our children.
American Exceptionalism
It was first a response to some “progs” bitching about Giuliani having the temerity to criticize the Supreme Caliph in waiting.Folks who have a difficult time accepting American exceptionalism often do so out of a true sense of humility. Others hate us because we as a people have accomplished what others can only dream of.
What is exceptional about America is opportunity. Phony definitions of diversity aside, human beings are blessed with a myriad of gifts and talents that long to be developed and put to use. These know no racial or ethnic boundaries.
Because of the nature of our Founding documents and reasonable adherence thereto, more people have discovered their own exceptionalism by discovering, developing and sharing their unique gifts and talents. Here they could rise above their "station" in life, try, fail, fail again, succeed or at least not be among those "cold and timid souls who have tasted neither victory nor defeat" (T Roosevelt).
This also explains why "progressives" have had such a difficult time transforming this beautiful concept into a two-class society where the privileged can rule over a rotting corpse in a one-world government by Fascism or Sharia..
If a nation's people are exceptional, it is because they are able to capitalize on the "endowment by our Creator" (DOI), the nation itself cannot help but be exceptional.
I trust the typical "progressive" would be grossly incapable of understanding this. Liberals and conservatives have more than an even chance, but "progressives" are like a metastasizing cancer on the body politic. Time for a little radiation and chemo.
What is exceptional about America is opportunity. Phony definitions of diversity aside, human beings are blessed with a myriad of gifts and talents that long to be developed and put to use. These know no racial or ethnic boundaries.
Because of the nature of our Founding documents and reasonable adherence thereto, more people have discovered their own exceptionalism by discovering, developing and sharing their unique gifts and talents. Here they could rise above their "station" in life, try, fail, fail again, succeed or at least not be among those "cold and timid souls who have tasted neither victory nor defeat" (T Roosevelt).
This also explains why "progressives" have had such a difficult time transforming this beautiful concept into a two-class society where the privileged can rule over a rotting corpse in a one-world government by Fascism or Sharia..
If a nation's people are exceptional, it is because they are able to capitalize on the "endowment by our Creator" (DOI), the nation itself cannot help but be exceptional.
I trust the typical "progressive" would be grossly incapable of understanding this. Liberals and conservatives have more than an even chance, but "progressives" are like a metastasizing cancer on the body politic. Time for a little radiation and chemo.
JBS and conspiracy theories
Carrol Quigley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley's course, receiving a 'B' as his final grade in both semesters (an excellent grade in a course where nearly half the students received D or lower).[2]:94, 96
Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy in 1991, when launching his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown.[2]:96 He also mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention
Quigley and secret societies[edit]One distinctive feature of Quigley's historical writings was his assertion that secret societies have played a significant role in recent world history. His writing on this topic has made Quigley famous among many who investigate conspiracy theories.[2]:96, 98 Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories.[18]
This began in 1970, when W. Cleon Skousen published The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book "Tragedy and Hope". The first third of this book consists of extensive excerpts from Tragedy and Hope, interspersed with commentary by Skousen. Skousen quotes Quigley's description of the activities of several groups: the Milner Group, a cartel of international bankers, theCommunist Party, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Council on Foreign Relations. According to Skousen's interpretation of Quigley's book, each of these is a facet of one large conspiracy.[24] The following year, G. Edward Griffin released the documentary The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking crediting the film: "We wish to acknowledge that this film was insipred by Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Capitalist which we believe is one of the most important documents of the decade."[25]
In 1971, Gary Allen, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, published None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which became a bestseller. Allen cited Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as an authoritative source on conspiracies throughout his book. Like Skousen, Allen understood the various conspiracies in Quigley's book to be branches of one large conspiracy, and also connected them to the Bilderbergers and to Richard Nixon.[26] The John Birch Society continues to cite Quigley as a primary source for their view of history.[27]
Quigley is also cited by several other authors who assert the existence of powerful conspiracies. Jim Marrs, whose work was used as a source by Oliver Stone in his film JFK, cites Quigley in his book Rule By Secrecy, which describes a conspiracy linking the Milner Group,Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and aliens who posed as the Sumerian godsthousands of years ago.[28] Pat Robertson's book The New World Order cites Quigley as an authority on a powerful conspiracy.[2]:98Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has asserted that Bill Clinton's political success was due to his pursuit of the "world government" agenda he learned from Quigley.[2]:98 G. Edward Griffin relies heavily on Quigley for information about the role Milner's secret society plays in the Federal Reserve in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.[29]
No facts only suppositions and speculations. Like most Conspiracy even those hundreds of years old not one has been proved to be indisputably valid. I shall not go the JBS published information but will simply ask a question . . why are all the quoted sources on the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE SIDE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley's course, receiving a 'B' as his final grade in both semesters (an excellent grade in a course where nearly half the students received D or lower).[2]:94, 96
Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy in 1991, when launching his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown.[2]:96 He also mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention
Quigley and secret societies[edit]One distinctive feature of Quigley's historical writings was his assertion that secret societies have played a significant role in recent world history. His writing on this topic has made Quigley famous among many who investigate conspiracy theories.[2]:96, 98 Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories.[18]
This began in 1970, when W. Cleon Skousen published The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book "Tragedy and Hope". The first third of this book consists of extensive excerpts from Tragedy and Hope, interspersed with commentary by Skousen. Skousen quotes Quigley's description of the activities of several groups: the Milner Group, a cartel of international bankers, theCommunist Party, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Council on Foreign Relations. According to Skousen's interpretation of Quigley's book, each of these is a facet of one large conspiracy.[24] The following year, G. Edward Griffin released the documentary The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking crediting the film: "We wish to acknowledge that this film was insipred by Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Capitalist which we believe is one of the most important documents of the decade."[25]
In 1971, Gary Allen, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, published None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which became a bestseller. Allen cited Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as an authoritative source on conspiracies throughout his book. Like Skousen, Allen understood the various conspiracies in Quigley's book to be branches of one large conspiracy, and also connected them to the Bilderbergers and to Richard Nixon.[26] The John Birch Society continues to cite Quigley as a primary source for their view of history.[27]
Quigley is also cited by several other authors who assert the existence of powerful conspiracies. Jim Marrs, whose work was used as a source by Oliver Stone in his film JFK, cites Quigley in his book Rule By Secrecy, which describes a conspiracy linking the Milner Group,Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and aliens who posed as the Sumerian godsthousands of years ago.[28] Pat Robertson's book The New World Order cites Quigley as an authority on a powerful conspiracy.[2]:98Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has asserted that Bill Clinton's political success was due to his pursuit of the "world government" agenda he learned from Quigley.[2]:98 G. Edward Griffin relies heavily on Quigley for information about the role Milner's secret society plays in the Federal Reserve in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.[29]
No facts only suppositions and speculations. Like most Conspiracy even those hundreds of years old not one has been proved to be indisputably valid. I shall not go the JBS published information but will simply ask a question . . why are all the quoted sources on the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE SIDE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Business Plot
In November 1934, Butler claimed the existence of a political conspiracy by business leaders to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as theBusiness Plot.[59][60] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[61] heard his testimony in secret.[62] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In November 1934, Butler told the committee that one Gerald P. MacGuire told him that a group of businessmen, supposedly backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by MacGuire, who was a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, former head of the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator, and that the J.P. Morgan banking firm was behind the plot. Butler told Congress that MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved publicly said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[62]
John Birch Society
The society has been described as "ultraconservative",[19] "far right",[20] and "extremist".[21] Other sources consider the society as part of thepatriot movement.[22][23] The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, lists the society as a "'Patriot' Group".[24]
The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and became a cornerstone of its beliefs, with each new member receiving a copy.[14] According to Welch, "both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a 'one-world socialist government.'"[31][32] Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to Western Civilization, and liberals as "secret communist traitors" who provided cover for the gradual process of collectivism, with the ultimate goal of replacing the nations of western civilization with a one-world socialist government. "There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general," he wrote, "but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction."[32]
In 1962, William F. Buckley, Jr. editor of the main conservative magazine the National Review, denounced Welch and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the GOP to purge itself of Welch's influence.[40]
In the late 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration's fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the left.[41] The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called "mass medicine"[42] but never purported that it was a communist conspiracy.[43]
The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. It was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch's conspiracy theories. Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism ... I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas."[44][45]
Eisenhower issue[edit]Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, "Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes." He went on. "With regard to ... Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason."[52]
The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[53]
The sensationalism of Welch's charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley's circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as "paranoid and idiotic libels" and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.[54] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.[55] In fact, Buckley's biographer John B. Judis wrote that "Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted."[5
2009–present[edit]The Society has been active in supporting the auditing of, and aims to eventually dismantle, the Federal Reserve System.[60] The JBS holds that the United States Constitution gives only Congress the ability to coin money, and does not permit it to delegate this power, or to transform the dollar into a fiat currency not backed by gold or silver.
The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, ending its decades-long exile from the mainstream conservative movement.[61][62]
Now let us return to the topic at hand - the use of article V to restore States rights and powers to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.
In November 1934, Butler claimed the existence of a political conspiracy by business leaders to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as theBusiness Plot.[59][60] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[61] heard his testimony in secret.[62] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In November 1934, Butler told the committee that one Gerald P. MacGuire told him that a group of businessmen, supposedly backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by MacGuire, who was a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, former head of the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator, and that the J.P. Morgan banking firm was behind the plot. Butler told Congress that MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved publicly said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[62]
John Birch Society
The society has been described as "ultraconservative",[19] "far right",[20] and "extremist".[21] Other sources consider the society as part of thepatriot movement.[22][23] The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, lists the society as a "'Patriot' Group".[24]
The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and became a cornerstone of its beliefs, with each new member receiving a copy.[14] According to Welch, "both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a 'one-world socialist government.'"[31][32] Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to Western Civilization, and liberals as "secret communist traitors" who provided cover for the gradual process of collectivism, with the ultimate goal of replacing the nations of western civilization with a one-world socialist government. "There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general," he wrote, "but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction."[32]
In 1962, William F. Buckley, Jr. editor of the main conservative magazine the National Review, denounced Welch and the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the GOP to purge itself of Welch's influence.[40]
In the late 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration's fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the left.[41] The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called "mass medicine"[42] but never purported that it was a communist conspiracy.[43]
The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. It was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch's conspiracy theories. Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, "I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism ... I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas."[44][45]
Eisenhower issue[edit]Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, "Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes." He went on. "With regard to ... Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason."[52]
The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[53]
The sensationalism of Welch's charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley's circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as "paranoid and idiotic libels" and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.[54] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.[55] In fact, Buckley's biographer John B. Judis wrote that "Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted."[5
2009–present[edit]The Society has been active in supporting the auditing of, and aims to eventually dismantle, the Federal Reserve System.[60] The JBS holds that the United States Constitution gives only Congress the ability to coin money, and does not permit it to delegate this power, or to transform the dollar into a fiat currency not backed by gold or silver.
The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, ending its decades-long exile from the mainstream conservative movement.[61][62]
Now let us return to the topic at hand - the use of article V to restore States rights and powers to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.
New Article V Info Web Site –
New Article V Info Web Site –
The Denver-based Independence Institute (II) has opened a new web site dedicated to current information about Article V and efforts to use that provision in the U.S. Constitution. It can be found at:www.articlevinfocenter.com.Included on the new II site is a brief new paper by Constitutional Scholar Rob Natelson explaining the Article V Convention approach to Constitutional Amendments. It is designed to be downloaded as an ideal 2-page, single sheet handout to be read by Article V newbies. The site also includes links to many other important Article V-related documents. - See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/january-newsletter/#.dpuf
The Denver-based Independence Institute (II) has opened a new web site dedicated to current information about Article V and efforts to use that provision in the U.S. Constitution. It can be found at:www.articlevinfocenter.com.Included on the new II site is a brief new paper by Constitutional Scholar Rob Natelson explaining the Article V Convention approach to Constitutional Amendments. It is designed to be downloaded as an ideal 2-page, single sheet handout to be read by Article V newbies. The site also includes links to many other important Article V-related documents. - See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/january-newsletter/#.dpuf
Article V News
George Soros Uncovered as Funder of Anti-Article V Efforts –
During the various Article V campaign efforts in Montana the past few weeks, a memo to legislators surfaced that purported to advise them on how to lob softballs toward speakers against Article V opponents (like JBS folks) while avoiding questions to knowledgeable Article V proponents.
The memo came from the Montana Budget and Policy Center, a spin-off of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities… which is heavily funded by George Soros.
Among other things, the message said: “We strongly urge committee members to AVOID talking about a balanced budget amendment, instead focusing on the lack of certainty in calling a convention. We also strongly urge that you resist asking Rob Natelson questions and instead direct your questions to the John Birch Society.” Then the memo offered soft questions to pose to the Article V opponents.
State-by-State Article V News –
Idaho: Legislators in this state are considering an Article V-related delegate limitation act called the “Idaho Limited Convention Act”. On a 12-3 party-line vote, with Democrats dissenting and Republicans voting in favor, the House State Affairs Committee approved the measure. The bill was introduced by Rep. Lynn Luker. It now goes to the House floor.
The bill does not call for an Article V convention, but sets out procedures for appointing Idaho’s delegates to such a convention, and declares that they can’t vote on any amendments other than those Idaho would outline in its application for a convention.
Reportedly Idaho Speaker Scott Bedke has taken it upon himself to invite Ohio Gov. Kasich to visit his legislature to promote the BBA bill. As of 2/13 no date had been set.
Montana: State Rep. Matthew Monforton, sponsored HJR4 (a BBA-focused resolution) in the Montana House where it passed out of the Judiciary Committee (12 to 9) on 2/11. Vote on the House floor was not scheduled as of our deadline.
Montana Rep. Hill introduced HJR3 (the Wolf-PAC proposal seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision). A hearing for HJR3 has not yet scheduled. The Convention of States (CoS) proposal started in the Montana Senate where the Judiciary Committee tabled (killed) the bill by a vote of 10 to 2. Reportedly the CoS folks made a very professional presentation, but the heavy influence of Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society prevailed. See story above.
New Hampshire: This state doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do. It currently has five Article V-related bills in House committees. The most talked about is HCR1… a bill to rescind all Article V resolutions adopted by previous sessions of the NH legislature. New Hampshire passed a BBA-focused Article V application in 2012.
Meanwhile NH legislators are considering HCR2, the Wolf-PAC bill… HCR3, calling for a CoS-type Article V convention… HCR5, a resolution calling for a Countermand-focused Article V convention… HCR6, a variation of the BBA application for an Article V convention… and HCR7, a resolution affirming states’ powers (not an Article V resolution). All of these bills are currently assigned to House committees and have yet to go to the Senate.
North Dakota: Five House members and six Senators co-sponsored HCR 3014, the CoS proposal. Meanwhile nine House members and two Senators co-sponsored HCR 3015, the BBA proposal (prime sponsor is Rep. Mark Dorsh). Also introduced were HCR 3016 and HCR 3017, and HCR 3033, three variations of the Countermand proposals… HCR 3030, a Wolf-PAC-type resolution, HB1138, the Compact for America proposal, and HB1441, a delegate limitation act.
The ND House Government & Veterans Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Kasper, heard 6 hours of testimony on four of the Article V bills on 2/5 and passed all four bills for floor vote.
Oregon: Senator Boquist has filled a bill calling for a BBA-focused Article V convention. The Wolf-PAC campaign is also working in Oregon.
South Dakota: A House committee passed a BBA-focused Article V resolution on 1/26 by a vote of 9 to 3. Then on 1/28 the entire House voted 39 to 31 to approve the measure and send it to the Senate. A Senate committee recommended “Do Pass” by a vote of 5 to 3, and it went for a floor vote on 2/10.
After considerable debate and lots of typical fear-mongering by legislators parroting anti-Article V rhetoric, the vote was 17 in favor and 15 opposed. Unfortunately that majority did not pass the bill because three legislators “were excused from voting”, meaning that the measure needed a majority of the 35 Senators – 18.
Bill sponsor Senator Otten moved for reconsideration, given that the required 18th vote was absent. The revote is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/17 at a time of the sponsor’s choosing so that the required 18th YES vote Senator will be present.
Reportedly the CoS proposal was killed in a SD committee for lack of a second to report it out of committee.
Texas: State Rep. Workman has introduced HJR 79, a BBA-focused Article V joint resolution.
Utah: A House committee hearing for the BBA resolution is set for 2/18. Rep. Kraig Powell is the prime sponsor. Utah is one of the states visited recently by Ohio Gov. Kasich where he encouraged legislators to support the BBA resolution.
Virginia: On 1/27 the Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee heard HJ499, a BBA-focused Article V resolution. The bill’s prime sponsor is Delegate LeMunyon.
A CoS resolution was on the table in this state with good support, but not quite enough. The House and Senate sponsors withdrew their resolution and plan to introduce it again next year.
West Virginia:
The CoS resolution has been filed in this state, reportedly with more co-sponsors in both houses than they need to pass their proposal. Their co-sponsors include some Democrats in both houses.
Wyoming: On 1/28 the Wyoming House, sitting as a committee of the whole, passed HR4, a BBA-focused Article V resolution by a vote of 44 to 16. The bill is now in the Senate Rules Committee. That hearing had not been scheduled as of our deadline.
The Wyoming House also approved HB75 by a vote of 45 to 15, a bill calling for Wyoming to join the Compact for America (CfA) plan. SJ4 is a CoS resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Peterson. It was defeated in committee.
Misc. News About Specific BBA-related Campaigns –
Compact for America (CfA) Developments:
In addition to their recent success in the Wyoming House, the CfA proposal has been introduced in the legislatures of Mississippi, Arizona (first hearing was 2/11), Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, New Mexico (sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell), North Carolina, North Dakota and Texas.
The Wyoming House passed the Compact bill (see above)… the Missouri Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on the Compact… the North Dakota House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Compact bill. CfA reports that their proposal has passed out of committees in the Mississippi Senate and the Arizona House.
Convention of States (CoS): They report that their proposed resolution has been filed in 25 states this session, and that a total of 41 states are expected to consider the CoS resolution this year… to add to the three states that have already approved their proposal. They also report they are approaching 100% of the nation’s House districts covered, in terms of petitions signed.
The Convention of States project has announced that former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has officially joined their team as a Senior Advisor.
- See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/february-newsletter/#sthash.wu85EMMY.dpuf
State-by-State Article V News –
Idaho: Legislators in this state are considering an Article V-related delegate limitation act called the “Idaho Limited Convention Act”. On a 12-3 party-line vote, with Democrats dissenting and Republicans voting in favor, the House State Affairs Committee approved the measure. The bill was introduced by Rep. Lynn Luker. It now goes to the House floor.
The bill does not call for an Article V convention, but sets out procedures for appointing Idaho’s delegates to such a convention, and declares that they can’t vote on any amendments other than those Idaho would outline in its application for a convention.
Reportedly Idaho Speaker Scott Bedke has taken it upon himself to invite Ohio Gov. Kasich to visit his legislature to promote the BBA bill. As of 2/13 no date had been set.
Montana: State Rep. Matthew Monforton, sponsored HJR4 (a BBA-focused resolution) in the Montana House where it passed out of the Judiciary Committee (12 to 9) on 2/11. Vote on the House floor was not scheduled as of our deadline.
Montana Rep. Hill introduced HJR3 (the Wolf-PAC proposal seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision). A hearing for HJR3 has not yet scheduled. The Convention of States (CoS) proposal started in the Montana Senate where the Judiciary Committee tabled (killed) the bill by a vote of 10 to 2. Reportedly the CoS folks made a very professional presentation, but the heavy influence of Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society prevailed. See story above.
New Hampshire: This state doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do. It currently has five Article V-related bills in House committees. The most talked about is HCR1… a bill to rescind all Article V resolutions adopted by previous sessions of the NH legislature. New Hampshire passed a BBA-focused Article V application in 2012.
Meanwhile NH legislators are considering HCR2, the Wolf-PAC bill… HCR3, calling for a CoS-type Article V convention… HCR5, a resolution calling for a Countermand-focused Article V convention… HCR6, a variation of the BBA application for an Article V convention… and HCR7, a resolution affirming states’ powers (not an Article V resolution). All of these bills are currently assigned to House committees and have yet to go to the Senate.
North Dakota: Five House members and six Senators co-sponsored HCR 3014, the CoS proposal. Meanwhile nine House members and two Senators co-sponsored HCR 3015, the BBA proposal (prime sponsor is Rep. Mark Dorsh). Also introduced were HCR 3016 and HCR 3017, and HCR 3033, three variations of the Countermand proposals… HCR 3030, a Wolf-PAC-type resolution, HB1138, the Compact for America proposal, and HB1441, a delegate limitation act.
The ND House Government & Veterans Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Kasper, heard 6 hours of testimony on four of the Article V bills on 2/5 and passed all four bills for floor vote.
Oregon: Senator Boquist has filled a bill calling for a BBA-focused Article V convention. The Wolf-PAC campaign is also working in Oregon.
South Dakota: A House committee passed a BBA-focused Article V resolution on 1/26 by a vote of 9 to 3. Then on 1/28 the entire House voted 39 to 31 to approve the measure and send it to the Senate. A Senate committee recommended “Do Pass” by a vote of 5 to 3, and it went for a floor vote on 2/10.
After considerable debate and lots of typical fear-mongering by legislators parroting anti-Article V rhetoric, the vote was 17 in favor and 15 opposed. Unfortunately that majority did not pass the bill because three legislators “were excused from voting”, meaning that the measure needed a majority of the 35 Senators – 18.
Bill sponsor Senator Otten moved for reconsideration, given that the required 18th vote was absent. The revote is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/17 at a time of the sponsor’s choosing so that the required 18th YES vote Senator will be present.
Reportedly the CoS proposal was killed in a SD committee for lack of a second to report it out of committee.
Texas: State Rep. Workman has introduced HJR 79, a BBA-focused Article V joint resolution.
Utah: A House committee hearing for the BBA resolution is set for 2/18. Rep. Kraig Powell is the prime sponsor. Utah is one of the states visited recently by Ohio Gov. Kasich where he encouraged legislators to support the BBA resolution.
Virginia: On 1/27 the Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee heard HJ499, a BBA-focused Article V resolution. The bill’s prime sponsor is Delegate LeMunyon.
A CoS resolution was on the table in this state with good support, but not quite enough. The House and Senate sponsors withdrew their resolution and plan to introduce it again next year.
West Virginia:
The CoS resolution has been filed in this state, reportedly with more co-sponsors in both houses than they need to pass their proposal. Their co-sponsors include some Democrats in both houses.
Wyoming: On 1/28 the Wyoming House, sitting as a committee of the whole, passed HR4, a BBA-focused Article V resolution by a vote of 44 to 16. The bill is now in the Senate Rules Committee. That hearing had not been scheduled as of our deadline.
The Wyoming House also approved HB75 by a vote of 45 to 15, a bill calling for Wyoming to join the Compact for America (CfA) plan. SJ4 is a CoS resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Peterson. It was defeated in committee.
Misc. News About Specific BBA-related Campaigns –
Compact for America (CfA) Developments:
In addition to their recent success in the Wyoming House, the CfA proposal has been introduced in the legislatures of Mississippi, Arizona (first hearing was 2/11), Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, New Mexico (sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell), North Carolina, North Dakota and Texas.
The Wyoming House passed the Compact bill (see above)… the Missouri Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on the Compact… the North Dakota House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Compact bill. CfA reports that their proposal has passed out of committees in the Mississippi Senate and the Arizona House.
Convention of States (CoS): They report that their proposed resolution has been filed in 25 states this session, and that a total of 41 states are expected to consider the CoS resolution this year… to add to the three states that have already approved their proposal. They also report they are approaching 100% of the nation’s House districts covered, in terms of petitions signed.
The Convention of States project has announced that former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has officially joined their team as a Senior Advisor.
- See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/february-newsletter/#sthash.wu85EMMY.dpuf
George Soros Uncovered as Funder of Anti-Article V Efforts –
During the various Article V campaign efforts in Montana the past few weeks, a memo to legislators surfaced that purported to advise them on how to lob softballs toward speakers against Article V opponents (like JBS folks) while avoiding questions to knowledgeable Article V proponents.
The memo came from the Montana Budget and Policy Center, a spin-off of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities… which is heavily funded by George Soros.
Among other things, the message said: “We strongly urge committee members to AVOID talking about a balanced budget amendment, instead focusing on the lack of certainty in calling a convention. We also strongly urge that you resist asking Rob Natelson questions and instead direct your questions to the John Birch Society.” Then the memo offered soft questions to pose to the Article V opponents.
State-by-State Article V News –
Idaho: Legislators in this state are considering an Article V-related delegate limitation act called the “Idaho Limited Convention Act”. On a 12-3 party-line vote, with Democrats dissenting and Republicans voting in favor, the House State Affairs Committee approved the measure. The bill was introduced by Rep. Lynn Luker. It now goes to the House floor.
The bill does not call for an Article V convention, but sets out procedures for appointing Idaho’s delegates to such a convention, and declares that they can’t vote on any amendments other than those Idaho would outline in its application for a convention.
Reportedly Idaho Speaker Scott Bedke has taken it upon himself to invite Ohio Gov. Kasich to visit his legislature to promote the BBA bill. As of 2/13 no date had been set.
Montana: State Rep. Matthew Monforton, sponsored HJR4 (a BBA-focused resolution) in the Montana House where it passed out of the Judiciary Committee (12 to 9) on 2/11. Vote on the House floor was not scheduled as of our deadline.
Montana Rep. Hill introduced HJR3 (the Wolf-PAC proposal seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision). A hearing for HJR3 has not yet scheduled. The Convention of States (CoS) proposal started in the Montana Senate where the Judiciary Committee tabled (killed) the bill by a vote of 10 to 2. Reportedly the CoS folks made a very professional presentation, but the heavy influence of Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society prevailed. See story above.
New Hampshire: This state doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do. It currently has five Article V-related bills in House committees. The most talked about is HCR1… a bill to rescind all Article V resolutions adopted by previous sessions of the NH legislature. New Hampshire passed a BBA-focused Article V application in 2012.
Meanwhile NH legislators are considering HCR2, the Wolf-PAC bill… HCR3, calling for a CoS-type Article V convention… HCR5, a resolution calling for a Countermand-focused Article V convention… HCR6, a variation of the BBA application for an Article V convention… and HCR7, a resolution affirming states’ powers (not an Article V resolution). All of these bills are currently assigned to House committees and have yet to go to the Senate.
North Dakota: Five House members and six Senators co-sponsored HCR 3014, the CoS proposal. Meanwhile nine House members and two Senators co-sponsored HCR 3015, the BBA proposal (prime sponsor is Rep. Mark Dorsh). Also introduced were HCR 3016 and HCR 3017, and HCR 3033, three variations of the Countermand proposals… HCR 3030, a Wolf-PAC-type resolution, HB1138, the Compact for America proposal, and HB1441, a delegate limitation act.
The ND House Government & Veterans Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Kasper, heard 6 hours of testimony on four of the Article V bills on 2/5 and passed all four bills for floor vote.
Oregon: Senator Boquist has filled a bill calling for a BBA-focused Article V convention. The Wolf-PAC campaign is also working in Oregon.
South Dakota: A House committee passed a BBA-focused Article V resolution on 1/26 by a vote of 9 to 3. Then on 1/28 the entire House voted 39 to 31 to approve the measure and send it to the Senate. A Senate committee recommended “Do Pass” by a vote of 5 to 3, and it went for a floor vote on 2/10.
After considerable debate and lots of typical fear-mongering by legislators parroting anti-Article V rhetoric, the vote was 17 in favor and 15 opposed. Unfortunately that majority did not pass the bill because three legislators “were excused from voting”, meaning that the measure needed a majority of the 35 Senators – 18.
Bill sponsor Senator Otten moved for reconsideration, given that the required 18th vote was absent. The revote is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/17 at a time of the sponsor’s choosing so that the required 18th YES vote Senator will be present.
Reportedly the CoS proposal was killed in a SD committee for lack of a second to report it out of committee.
Texas: State Rep. Workman has introduced HJR 79, a BBA-focused Article V joint resolution.
Utah: A House committee hearing for the BBA resolution is set for 2/18. Rep. Kraig Powell is the prime sponsor. Utah is one of the states visited recently by Ohio Gov. Kasich where he encouraged legislators to support the BBA resolution.
Virginia: On 1/27 the Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee heard HJ499, a BBA-focused Article V resolution. The bill’s prime sponsor is Delegate LeMunyon.
A CoS resolution was on the table in this state with good support, but not quite enough. The House and Senate sponsors withdrew their resolution and plan to introduce it again next year.
West Virginia:
The CoS resolution has been filed in this state, reportedly with more co-sponsors in both houses than they need to pass their proposal. Their co-sponsors include some Democrats in both houses.
Wyoming: On 1/28 the Wyoming House, sitting as a committee of the whole, passed HR4, a BBA-focused Article V resolution by a vote of 44 to 16. The bill is now in the Senate Rules Committee. That hearing had not been scheduled as of our deadline.
The Wyoming House also approved HB75 by a vote of 45 to 15, a bill calling for Wyoming to join the Compact for America (CfA) plan. SJ4 is a CoS resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Peterson. It was defeated in committee.
Misc. News About Specific BBA-related Campaigns –
Compact for America (CfA) Developments:
In addition to their recent success in the Wyoming House, the CfA proposal has been introduced in the legislatures of Mississippi, Arizona (first hearing was 2/11), Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, New Mexico (sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell), North Carolina, North Dakota and Texas.
The Wyoming House passed the Compact bill (see above)… the Missouri Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on the Compact… the North Dakota House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Compact bill. CfA reports that their proposal has passed out of committees in the Mississippi Senate and the Arizona House.
Convention of States (CoS): They report that their proposed resolution has been filed in 25 states this session, and that a total of 41 states are expected to consider the CoS resolution this year… to add to the three states that have already approved their proposal. They also report they are approaching 100% of the nation’s House districts covered, in terms of petitions signed.
The Convention of States project has announced that former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has officially joined their team as a Senior Advisor.
- See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/february-newsletter/#sthash.wu85EMMY.dpuf
State-by-State Article V News –
Idaho: Legislators in this state are considering an Article V-related delegate limitation act called the “Idaho Limited Convention Act”. On a 12-3 party-line vote, with Democrats dissenting and Republicans voting in favor, the House State Affairs Committee approved the measure. The bill was introduced by Rep. Lynn Luker. It now goes to the House floor.
The bill does not call for an Article V convention, but sets out procedures for appointing Idaho’s delegates to such a convention, and declares that they can’t vote on any amendments other than those Idaho would outline in its application for a convention.
Reportedly Idaho Speaker Scott Bedke has taken it upon himself to invite Ohio Gov. Kasich to visit his legislature to promote the BBA bill. As of 2/13 no date had been set.
Montana: State Rep. Matthew Monforton, sponsored HJR4 (a BBA-focused resolution) in the Montana House where it passed out of the Judiciary Committee (12 to 9) on 2/11. Vote on the House floor was not scheduled as of our deadline.
Montana Rep. Hill introduced HJR3 (the Wolf-PAC proposal seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision). A hearing for HJR3 has not yet scheduled. The Convention of States (CoS) proposal started in the Montana Senate where the Judiciary Committee tabled (killed) the bill by a vote of 10 to 2. Reportedly the CoS folks made a very professional presentation, but the heavy influence of Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society prevailed. See story above.
New Hampshire: This state doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do. It currently has five Article V-related bills in House committees. The most talked about is HCR1… a bill to rescind all Article V resolutions adopted by previous sessions of the NH legislature. New Hampshire passed a BBA-focused Article V application in 2012.
Meanwhile NH legislators are considering HCR2, the Wolf-PAC bill… HCR3, calling for a CoS-type Article V convention… HCR5, a resolution calling for a Countermand-focused Article V convention… HCR6, a variation of the BBA application for an Article V convention… and HCR7, a resolution affirming states’ powers (not an Article V resolution). All of these bills are currently assigned to House committees and have yet to go to the Senate.
North Dakota: Five House members and six Senators co-sponsored HCR 3014, the CoS proposal. Meanwhile nine House members and two Senators co-sponsored HCR 3015, the BBA proposal (prime sponsor is Rep. Mark Dorsh). Also introduced were HCR 3016 and HCR 3017, and HCR 3033, three variations of the Countermand proposals… HCR 3030, a Wolf-PAC-type resolution, HB1138, the Compact for America proposal, and HB1441, a delegate limitation act.
The ND House Government & Veterans Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Kasper, heard 6 hours of testimony on four of the Article V bills on 2/5 and passed all four bills for floor vote.
Oregon: Senator Boquist has filled a bill calling for a BBA-focused Article V convention. The Wolf-PAC campaign is also working in Oregon.
South Dakota: A House committee passed a BBA-focused Article V resolution on 1/26 by a vote of 9 to 3. Then on 1/28 the entire House voted 39 to 31 to approve the measure and send it to the Senate. A Senate committee recommended “Do Pass” by a vote of 5 to 3, and it went for a floor vote on 2/10.
After considerable debate and lots of typical fear-mongering by legislators parroting anti-Article V rhetoric, the vote was 17 in favor and 15 opposed. Unfortunately that majority did not pass the bill because three legislators “were excused from voting”, meaning that the measure needed a majority of the 35 Senators – 18.
Bill sponsor Senator Otten moved for reconsideration, given that the required 18th vote was absent. The revote is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/17 at a time of the sponsor’s choosing so that the required 18th YES vote Senator will be present.
Reportedly the CoS proposal was killed in a SD committee for lack of a second to report it out of committee.
Texas: State Rep. Workman has introduced HJR 79, a BBA-focused Article V joint resolution.
Utah: A House committee hearing for the BBA resolution is set for 2/18. Rep. Kraig Powell is the prime sponsor. Utah is one of the states visited recently by Ohio Gov. Kasich where he encouraged legislators to support the BBA resolution.
Virginia: On 1/27 the Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee heard HJ499, a BBA-focused Article V resolution. The bill’s prime sponsor is Delegate LeMunyon.
A CoS resolution was on the table in this state with good support, but not quite enough. The House and Senate sponsors withdrew their resolution and plan to introduce it again next year.
West Virginia:
The CoS resolution has been filed in this state, reportedly with more co-sponsors in both houses than they need to pass their proposal. Their co-sponsors include some Democrats in both houses.
Wyoming: On 1/28 the Wyoming House, sitting as a committee of the whole, passed HR4, a BBA-focused Article V resolution by a vote of 44 to 16. The bill is now in the Senate Rules Committee. That hearing had not been scheduled as of our deadline.
The Wyoming House also approved HB75 by a vote of 45 to 15, a bill calling for Wyoming to join the Compact for America (CfA) plan. SJ4 is a CoS resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Peterson. It was defeated in committee.
Misc. News About Specific BBA-related Campaigns –
Compact for America (CfA) Developments:
In addition to their recent success in the Wyoming House, the CfA proposal has been introduced in the legislatures of Mississippi, Arizona (first hearing was 2/11), Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, New Mexico (sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell), North Carolina, North Dakota and Texas.
The Wyoming House passed the Compact bill (see above)… the Missouri Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on the Compact… the North Dakota House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Compact bill. CfA reports that their proposal has passed out of committees in the Mississippi Senate and the Arizona House.
Convention of States (CoS): They report that their proposed resolution has been filed in 25 states this session, and that a total of 41 states are expected to consider the CoS resolution this year… to add to the three states that have already approved their proposal. They also report they are approaching 100% of the nation’s House districts covered, in terms of petitions signed.
The Convention of States project has announced that former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has officially joined their team as a Senior Advisor.
- See more at: http://articlevcaucus.com/news/february-newsletter/#sthash.wu85EMMY.dpuf
Impending Loss&Control of Free Political Speech,Reliable Energy. The Elites, the FEC, the EPA and You.
America is delicately balanced on a very slippery cusp presently. It is not a question of if it will slip but when it will slip. The question is also to where will it slip? In the very near future, the people will eventually have to choose between the concept of Security and the concept of Freedom. If they don't choose soon, that choice will be stripped from them, and the opposition will impose it's self centered will on America.
We all know what that will is going to be. consider the Al Gore's and the George Soros of the world, what they have said and done so far, and extrapolate that into the very near future. We will have let the Grand American Experiment Die without a fight. At this point, the very people who are so outnumbered and are desperately trying to hold the line, are kin to the Spartans who held the pass at Thermopylae. In short we few are holding a rear guard action against what now is an overwhelming force until others can move to build a force that can oppose them with hope of success. The real question is: Will They?
At least that's what I hope for but probably won't come about. Think back and examine the past from the mid 1960s until the present to see the systematic assault those Progressive Elites have waged against the traditional Moral and honorable lifestyles America professed to have. I do have to admit that some of the things the opposition championed was necessary, but they skewed it strictly to their benefit.
Starting with the LBJ Administration during the Vietnam War the Socialist/Progressives used the horrors of war to split the nation down the middle. that is a tried and true tactic to divide and conquer, and it has worked so far. Our progressive opposition tries to cloak themselves in the mantle of a mythical Moral High Ground which they manipulate as the Elites need to consolidate their empires. Then it was the start of twisting the Constitutional concept of "Equal Justice" into the muddy waters of Social Justice.
Social Justice was used then and is still being used today to manipulate and control the masses of people that have been in all intents and purposes turned into slaves that must act in their immoral masters behalf or die of starvation. This is the complete opposite of what they profess to be doing. They profess that they are Helping those less fortunate while denying that they are the entities that caused most of them to become less fortunate and dependent on the largess of the Elite overlords.The other side that has grabbed the power and communications is in the position to do or say anything without fear of being called out on their lies. The people have been conditioned over the years to just accept their fate like there is nothing they can do to stop it.
The Opposition toady's in the Federal Elections Commission have moved to "Regulate Political ADVERTISEMENTS on the internet, with them deciding which political positions are advertisements. That way they will get around the Constitutional Right to Free Speech. Strangely enough the FEC does not have that authority do do that. Don't look to the establishment to do anything about it either because their vested interests lies in controlling the political discussions completely.
Name Position Appointed By Sworn In Term Expires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015[7]
Ann M. RavelVice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017[8]
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
The chances of the FEC getting their way to control Political Speech/Advertising on the net depends on if the Republicans will sell out. We must contact our Republican Representatives and also the GOP Leadership and order them to instruct the Republican commissioners to refuse to pass the new regulations for the internet. 4 have their terms expired and two still have 1 and 2 years respectively to serve.
This stealth move by the progressive controlled FEC is tantamount to what the IRS has done to the Conservative Non-Profit Groups and Conservative individuals that have run afoul of the Obama/Soros political NWO juggernaut. Recently the FEC held "Open to public hearings" where about 75% of those allowed to speak were for control. surprisingly most of those were Union controlled Democrats, or had some direct affiliation with the Progressive Socialist party.
There is another hearing coming soon and I will advise you of it. It will be critical that as many freedom loving people weigh in on it if we expect to overcome the stacked deck the progs have marched forth for their viewpoints.
The EPA is now creating conditions through Regulations that will do exactly as Obama said he would do, It will raise our energy cost to about $600 a month and saddle us with unreliable energy transmissions. They intend to shut down all the coal fired plants, not allow any Nuclear plants to come online, and relegate us to wind power and solar power sources that are totally controlled by the billionaire Elites who are backing Obama. Here are some links to the truth about what has and will happen;
Convicted felon designed EPA's playbook for faking science | WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/
https://shastalantern.net/2015/02/land-mark-evidentiary-hearing-takes-place-in-redding-ca/
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/
EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules
Is the CARB Laundering Public Funds Through Unlawful Delaware Corporation?
This is the beginning documentation on the all out attack on our Nation and it's energy production capacity that Obama promised when he said according to my plan Energy Costs will necessarily skyrocket! When energy becomes unreliable and un affordable it will cause the total collapse of our economy and the demise of America. what will come after that will make stalin's soviet Russian Gulags look like a picnic in the park.
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
We all know what that will is going to be. consider the Al Gore's and the George Soros of the world, what they have said and done so far, and extrapolate that into the very near future. We will have let the Grand American Experiment Die without a fight. At this point, the very people who are so outnumbered and are desperately trying to hold the line, are kin to the Spartans who held the pass at Thermopylae. In short we few are holding a rear guard action against what now is an overwhelming force until others can move to build a force that can oppose them with hope of success. The real question is: Will They?
At least that's what I hope for but probably won't come about. Think back and examine the past from the mid 1960s until the present to see the systematic assault those Progressive Elites have waged against the traditional Moral and honorable lifestyles America professed to have. I do have to admit that some of the things the opposition championed was necessary, but they skewed it strictly to their benefit.
Starting with the LBJ Administration during the Vietnam War the Socialist/Progressives used the horrors of war to split the nation down the middle. that is a tried and true tactic to divide and conquer, and it has worked so far. Our progressive opposition tries to cloak themselves in the mantle of a mythical Moral High Ground which they manipulate as the Elites need to consolidate their empires. Then it was the start of twisting the Constitutional concept of "Equal Justice" into the muddy waters of Social Justice.
Social Justice was used then and is still being used today to manipulate and control the masses of people that have been in all intents and purposes turned into slaves that must act in their immoral masters behalf or die of starvation. This is the complete opposite of what they profess to be doing. They profess that they are Helping those less fortunate while denying that they are the entities that caused most of them to become less fortunate and dependent on the largess of the Elite overlords.The other side that has grabbed the power and communications is in the position to do or say anything without fear of being called out on their lies. The people have been conditioned over the years to just accept their fate like there is nothing they can do to stop it.
The Opposition toady's in the Federal Elections Commission have moved to "Regulate Political ADVERTISEMENTS on the internet, with them deciding which political positions are advertisements. That way they will get around the Constitutional Right to Free Speech. Strangely enough the FEC does not have that authority do do that. Don't look to the establishment to do anything about it either because their vested interests lies in controlling the political discussions completely.
Name Position Appointed By Sworn In Term Expires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015[7]
Ann M. RavelVice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017[8]
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008Expired -- serving until replaced
The chances of the FEC getting their way to control Political Speech/Advertising on the net depends on if the Republicans will sell out. We must contact our Republican Representatives and also the GOP Leadership and order them to instruct the Republican commissioners to refuse to pass the new regulations for the internet. 4 have their terms expired and two still have 1 and 2 years respectively to serve.
This stealth move by the progressive controlled FEC is tantamount to what the IRS has done to the Conservative Non-Profit Groups and Conservative individuals that have run afoul of the Obama/Soros political NWO juggernaut. Recently the FEC held "Open to public hearings" where about 75% of those allowed to speak were for control. surprisingly most of those were Union controlled Democrats, or had some direct affiliation with the Progressive Socialist party.
There is another hearing coming soon and I will advise you of it. It will be critical that as many freedom loving people weigh in on it if we expect to overcome the stacked deck the progs have marched forth for their viewpoints.
The EPA is now creating conditions through Regulations that will do exactly as Obama said he would do, It will raise our energy cost to about $600 a month and saddle us with unreliable energy transmissions. They intend to shut down all the coal fired plants, not allow any Nuclear plants to come online, and relegate us to wind power and solar power sources that are totally controlled by the billionaire Elites who are backing Obama. Here are some links to the truth about what has and will happen;
Convicted felon designed EPA's playbook for faking science | WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/
https://shastalantern.net/2015/02/land-mark-evidentiary-hearing-takes-place-in-redding-ca/
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/
EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules
Is the CARB Laundering Public Funds Through Unlawful Delaware Corporation?
This is the beginning documentation on the all out attack on our Nation and it's energy production capacity that Obama promised when he said according to my plan Energy Costs will necessarily skyrocket! When energy becomes unreliable and un affordable it will cause the total collapse of our economy and the demise of America. what will come after that will make stalin's soviet Russian Gulags look like a picnic in the park.
It's up to us to see the dangers the future is fraught with because of our letting things get so out of hand, that our Government has been taken over by a group that makes dyed in the wool hard line Marxists look like Freedom Fighters. If we unite now, we will still have the slim chance to take back our Nation and expose all the counterrevolutionaries from the Left like the Ayers and Dorns that have ascended to power since the 60s to destroy us and what we used to stand for.
In A Joint Effort With
Declaration and Secession, OR, Article V----You Decide
PART 1 Our Founding
Today we Americans are faced with similar problems. Not from a king, but from a president who acts like a king and seemingly does not have the best interests of America at heart but apparently is acting against American interests with his ill conceived ideology.
We were founded as a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
That Means;
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
Our government was designed with perfect balance between three co-equal branches of government, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Further, this new Republic was crafted specifically to be perpetuated upon a Democratic process. The Process, was unique and never before crafted more perfectly in the history, to be 'bound by the chains' of a Constitutional Law. The elected and represented democratic element was instituted so that we would remain a nation of laws and not of men.
What began as 13 independent colonies, joined to create a single nation under that Constitutional compact. We are in Fact 50 Separate, sovereign Nation States bound together for our mutual protection, benefit, and profits. To deny that would be tantamount to deny the blood and sacrifices of our forbears as well as human nature. The concept of STATE SOVEREIGNTY is no longer showcased by our Federalist dominated School system.
The original Declaration of Independence stated it most succinctly and clearly. What we desired for ourselves, our sovereignty-our freedom. Freedom we wanted to be able to live and prosper under and then pass down to our posterity. But even at the beginning of such a perfect Union, the Elitist elements of a ruling class mentality infected our Republic, the old world system followed and was nurtured in the new AMERICAN breasts of many. That element is still with us today. Is it a constant foible, and human frailty that we choose to debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator...power and control?
The dancing-prancing-jackanapes in power, assisted and probably controlled themselves by invisible elitist class strings, the faces of the marionettes change; the puppet masters too, but that elitist system has never left us. The same arrogant mentalities, who wanted to make George Washington a King so they could become his House of Lords, exist today, vying for favor and playing politics with our lives. Politics that thrive on privilege and power over the public they are supposed to serve. Today our national politicians conduct themselves just as the English Lords we left behind centuries ago did, .... as their King commanded.
Look where our decades of steps away from our Founding Principles and Constitutional government have brought us. These modern Peers have modified everything that we once held sacred as a Nation under God. It's to the point where we can't even acknowledge our faith in God or practice our Christianity. A Heartbreaking reality for a Nation founded on these very principles and based on moral conduct. Backward once again we have traveled, back to a class of politicians who are wrought in the same mold as the old Imperialists our forefathers had to fight against in our Revolutionary War! We must assert ourselves once again to insure that our Lives, Liberties, and Freedoms are not snatched from us by Elitist Rulers who want to return to the rule of men and scrap the rule of Law, but how must we fight?
PART 2. TWO CHOICES.
IS THE BEST SOLUTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR REDRESS AND RESET? ARTICLE V.
It has taken us eight paragraphs to barely come close to the sentence that Jefferson wrote those many years ago;
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then as now those words contain the distillation of humanity's quest for Freedom and Self Direction
"We The People", with modern restrictions having been visited upon us tenfold, over the restrictions and excesses that King George visited on the first Colonists, need to declare for ourselves that we will no longer tolerate these excesses. That we will, in fact rescue our lawful rights as a free and sovereign people living in unified but sovereign and separate Nation States, that are bound truly and legally under the language and governmental design of the original Constitution.
There were three amendments, deliberately placed into the Constitution to abrogate and in fact subvert, the built in Checks and Balances of the Constitution. They have, as well, completely undermined the enumeration of powers clause. In doing so, just like a snowball rolling and growing down a hill, it has reversed the power flow as originally intended, FROM the States and given the source of control TO the Federal Government.
Over decades, this slow erosion away from our perfect form of government has resulted in our virtual Dictatorship today. A Federal Government powerful over the States and the people, an executive branch that aggressively tramps beyond Constitutional limits. The major players, the root source of our governmental change on course, were the Restoration Amendments known as the 14th, 16th, and 17th.
The 14th is the most insidious, was the first to be used for purposes other than it was originally intended. That intention was only and solely to defend the Citizenship and Voting Rights of the Freed Slaves PERIOD! It has been bastardized since then by being cited (erroneously IMHO) to allow everything from Anchor Babies having Citizenship to the now potential for same sex marriages. In fact it has been the most litigated Amendment ever to secure even more enforcement powers for, and to grow those powers for, the Federal Government.
For a clearer understanding of what the 14th has been transformed into from it's original intent, and how it has been mis-used through litigation, with judges legislating from the bench during that litigation to reverse the intent of the Founding Fathers. This site has the complete explanations http://www.14thamendment.us/ . Read the information before it goes missing like the Ratified Original 13th Amendment did during the reconstruction period.
Therefore; We The People have decided to restore the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands by availing ourselves of the Article V provision in the Constitution, to repeal the various amendments which were ALL proposed solely by the Congress for their own aggrandizements and increased powers, and that have since grown the Federal Government into something that it was never intended to become.
Consider the knowledge and learning that went into the crafting of the Constitution, and why the Framers and Ratifiers left within it the tool to correct any usurpation of it.They were highly educated and intelligent men who were students of both history and human nature. They saw the danger because they had lived it, they left us the solution, why do we not recognize it, why do we fear using it. It is lawful, peaceful, and achievable and completely effective. It all comes down to the Framers and Ratifiers trusting the people more than they trusted the government with it's corrupting influence of power feeding the greed of men.
PART 3 SECESSION?
MUST WE SECEDE? SHOULD WE CONSIDER DISSOLVING OUR UNION? some think so.
Some have suggested it has become the time for all of our citizenry, who are still free from the brainwashing of the progressive-socialist theology, to submit to our Government a modern day Declaration of Independence.
Let us intellectually explore that avenue, not as a call to rebellion, but as an exercise to educate the citizenry in the true power and authority the people wield over the Government.
A modern day Declaration of Independence could read as such;
We the people of the 50 Nation States that have voluntarily banded together to form the United States of America , sovereign States who are committed to mutual defense and economic protections to insure the ability of any and all of our citizens to pursue prosperity through their hard work and initiative without excessive restrictions set on them by an overbearing and over controlling government Hereby declare: If the Federal Government does not cede back it's stolen powers. If it fails to start obeying the Legal Constitutional Strictures, or refuses to Restore the Checks and Balances Forthwith. It is hereby ordered by the people, who are the highest governmental authority in America ; To Immediately return to it's proper sphere of governance which the Founding Fathers intended for it to have. Furthermore, if the Representatives of that Government do not return to obeying their specifically stated Enumerated powers incorporated within the Constitution of the United States, and Honoring their Solemn Oaths of Office, the people will take actions to see their demands are met.;
We The People, will direct our Independent Nation States Legislatures to peacably leave the present Union and form a New Republic. A Republic that will Strengthen Individual and States Rights. Return to the original intent of the written Constitution as the guideline for the New Republic. The Constitution but will mirror the current United States Constitution, but we will start from the beginning and incorporate only the Amendments such as the Original Bill of Right, clarifying the same to forever prevent future generations from "Interpreting" them to change their meanings. Rewrite all controversial areas in plain language, to prevent future Lawyers from obfuscating the original meanings. We will also write some few new areas that meet the criteria of that New Republics Enhanced Constitution while concurrently reviewing current Federal Laws, and voiding all current Federal Laws which do not meet our Criteria for the proper sphere of Federal Government. The States will return to their original position of supremacy and control over the Federal Government. All political and judicial leaders will be required to follow the New Constitution or be relieved of their positions.
Pursuant to that Declaration of intent to secede, We The People cite this as the legal reasoning of why we are allowed to make such a move; First, we must cite the Declaration of Independence as the document that covers the rights of a people to;
1. "dissolve the political bands which have connected them".
2. "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them".
3. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
4. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "
5. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
All the explanations in those quotations are taken directly from the Declaration of Independence which is our ultimate Moral Authority for the formation of the United States, and placed here to showcase the rights of a people to self determination when their government becomes toxic to those cherished rights.
Next: We move on but only as an exercise for determining the possibility of legal secession from the "Perpetual Union" as a right that was already detailed in the Declaration of Independence that directly led to the formation of that "Perpetual Union". Also to educate the Governmental Representatives what our power and authority over them really consists of.
The Secession Question; As accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body.
This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move. Therefore we believe Lincoln was wrong when he declared the Confederate States as "In Rebellion" and still part of the Union.
Furthermore we base this on the 'Articles of the Confederation' said articles being not legally repealed when the current Constitution was ratified, and therefore we believe the 'Articles of Confederation' has the presumption of legal precedent by predating the Constitution, and not having been repealed before or after the Constitution was ratified and basing this presumption on Common Law.
We specify the section of those articles thusly; This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” ((Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library, Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781, 2008,http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp; accessed June 2012.))
Based on this we declare that Inherent Sovereignty to dissolve ourselves from the Perpetual Union by means of that expressly granted and Codified Sovereignty.
We The People, in the interests of maintaining a peaceful solution to redress our legitimate concerns, will accordingly petition our fellow Nation States within the Union for permission to remove ourselves from that Union which in our considered opinion no longer represents our interests. We are basing that decision on the sections of the Declaration of Independence which is the moral basis for our Nations founding. We will agree that we will only invoke the declared secession valid and enforceable with the express permission of our Sister States. We will do this by requiring the same percentages of votes by our Sister States to approve Secession as the same percentage necessary for ratification of an amendment. We will accord every State that wishes to leave the "Perpetual Union" the right to secede using that peaceful artifice.
We The People, according to the current Constitution, are invested by it as the highest embodiment of government and governmental power and authority, that being codified and protected by the very Constitution itself. We do not take this step lightly, nor do we take if frivolously. We take it because all of our pleas of the the vast majority of our fellow citizens, amounting to approximately 3/4 of the population of the United States, have in fact been denied their lawful desires by the very representatives who were elected expressly to represent their desired cases for incorporation into general law.
We stand in the circumstances that our forebears did before the American Revolution with King George. We seem to be facing King Obama and his Parliament of Congressional Fops who kowtow to his every whim with no regard to the people whom they are legally and honor bound to represent. It is the sickness of modern Progressivism that has brought us to this brink.
Furthermore, if any States decide to Secede, We The People will annex all the Regular Military Assets,and Materials, and all Assets of the National Guard units residing in the respective States. We will take peaceful political control of all the Regular Military and National Guard Bases within those States. We will contract with their support industries within those respective states to supply the necessary items to protect and defend our New Nation.
However if any of the Military or National Guard Personnel stationed within those Seceded States decide they do not want to be part of the New Nation, we will give them leave to remove themselves peaceably to any States that decided not to secede, but they will not be allowed to take their issued equipment with them other than their personal gear and uniforms.
Those States who refuse to join in with us, Fear Not. We contemplate no aggressive actions towards you. We intend to Utilize the Original Constitution as our Guiding Document, in it's Original Form, removing all the Amendments after the Bill of Rights, to be our guiding principles of the New Government. The only other exceptions will be leaving the amendment for the abolition of slavery intact. And a modified amendment that guarantees the right to vote for every Legal Adult Citizen of the United States.
We also intend to revamp our Court system within the New States to remove any justices that have shown they do not adhere to the original Constitution concepts and declared principles of intent. The oaths of office that was taken by the officers and men in the Guard and Military shall be construed to hold valid to the defense of the Original Constitution and it's intent. prior to 1876. The methods and final determinations will be solely up to the New States Legislatures themselves.
The [restored] original constitution along with it's checks and balances will be the rule of law governing our new nation. There will however be, some modifications for clarification to the original Constitution.
First; of those clarifications will be to explain in clear and simple terms that the separation of Church and State is intended to prevent the Government from creating an official religion and not to suppress any citizens Peaceful and non-violent pursuit of their beliefs unless those beliefs run afoul of the Constitutional Laws, said religious deviation will not be allowed to supplant the Constitutional Laws.
Second; The Freedom of Speech will be understood to protect all forms of Political dissident speech, Obnoxious speech, passive non-violent protest is protected. Only specific areas of unprotected speech would be exemplified as shouting Fire! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Deliberate Lies or Mis-Representations as statements of fact. Perjury.
Third; The Second Amendment will be construed to mean that every citizen over the age of majority is the ‘Militia’ and has the right to keep and bear arms up to and including the latest military technology excepting nuclear. The intent and reasoning behind this is to give the Citizens and the States the means to defend themselves against a government that has severely overstepped it's bounds. Provided every peaceful means has been exhausted prior to such use. It is also to be clarified that no government can enact a law that will abridge this right excepting incarcerated persons during their incarceration.
Fourth; The Tenth Amendment will be inviolable with respect to States Rights controlling the Federal Government's Rights and Actions.
Fifth; There will be a court of last resort for citizens who will challenge any governmental action. That court will be comprised of a panel of seven citizens who are chosen from the voter rolls and who will listen to the complaints of the citizen. A transcript of those complaints will be given to knowledgeable legal people who will in turn suggest the legal premises for the panel to decide the case. No lawyers will be admitted at this stage.
Sixth; The Article V section will be expanded to detail the format for any amendment convention regardless if it is called by the Congress or by the States. Said details covering all aspects of those conventions will have to be approved by vote of the citizenry with a 7/8 majority approval to become law.
Should there be a disagreement by any of the parties there will be a public trial with the jury randomly picked from the voter roles with no person excused except those who are physically or intellectually/emotionally unable or incompetent to attend a trial and/or render a verdict. The average citizen will be required to do jury duty.
Further; Any deviation from this format will have to be submitted to the public with both sides adequately represented.
PART 4 CONCLUSION
In conclusion of this exercise, we believe the people need to take steps to ensure the restoration of original Constitutional Principles, and offering a simple choice between the two on the way that may be achieved.
1. Amendment through Article V, and repeal of the 14, 16, and 17 amendments OR
2. A new declaration of intent for Independence followed by secession....
Which one is much simpler and less destructive to the concept of a nation?
Which one offers the less peril to restoration of original intent?
The second speaks to the fear many loudly protest, don't touch the Constitution through repeal or amendments offered by a States Convention because of the danger of changing it too much.
If we don't let the document defend and restore itself we risk far worse by more drastic means of correction? The best conclusion seems obvious.
I ask one more thing; Since all of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were proposed solely by the Congress, how many of them actually benefited the people more than they benefited the expansion of the Federal Government and Congressional power?
In view of that, who is to be trusted with modifying the legal controls over our way of life? The Congress, or the People themselves?
WE THE PEOPLE, need to re-establish the Government based on the old tried and true principles of the Original Constitution, and we need to do it now!
We were founded as a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
That Means;
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
Our government was designed with perfect balance between three co-equal branches of government, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Further, this new Republic was crafted specifically to be perpetuated upon a Democratic process. The Process, was unique and never before crafted more perfectly in the history, to be 'bound by the chains' of a Constitutional Law. The elected and represented democratic element was instituted so that we would remain a nation of laws and not of men.
What began as 13 independent colonies, joined to create a single nation under that Constitutional compact. We are in Fact 50 Separate, sovereign Nation States bound together for our mutual protection, benefit, and profits. To deny that would be tantamount to deny the blood and sacrifices of our forbears as well as human nature. The concept of STATE SOVEREIGNTY is no longer showcased by our Federalist dominated School system.
The original Declaration of Independence stated it most succinctly and clearly. What we desired for ourselves, our sovereignty-our freedom. Freedom we wanted to be able to live and prosper under and then pass down to our posterity. But even at the beginning of such a perfect Union, the Elitist elements of a ruling class mentality infected our Republic, the old world system followed and was nurtured in the new AMERICAN breasts of many. That element is still with us today. Is it a constant foible, and human frailty that we choose to debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator...power and control?
The dancing-prancing-jackanapes in power, assisted and probably controlled themselves by invisible elitist class strings, the faces of the marionettes change; the puppet masters too, but that elitist system has never left us. The same arrogant mentalities, who wanted to make George Washington a King so they could become his House of Lords, exist today, vying for favor and playing politics with our lives. Politics that thrive on privilege and power over the public they are supposed to serve. Today our national politicians conduct themselves just as the English Lords we left behind centuries ago did, .... as their King commanded.
Look where our decades of steps away from our Founding Principles and Constitutional government have brought us. These modern Peers have modified everything that we once held sacred as a Nation under God. It's to the point where we can't even acknowledge our faith in God or practice our Christianity. A Heartbreaking reality for a Nation founded on these very principles and based on moral conduct. Backward once again we have traveled, back to a class of politicians who are wrought in the same mold as the old Imperialists our forefathers had to fight against in our Revolutionary War! We must assert ourselves once again to insure that our Lives, Liberties, and Freedoms are not snatched from us by Elitist Rulers who want to return to the rule of men and scrap the rule of Law, but how must we fight?
PART 2. TWO CHOICES.
IS THE BEST SOLUTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR REDRESS AND RESET? ARTICLE V.
It has taken us eight paragraphs to barely come close to the sentence that Jefferson wrote those many years ago;
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then as now those words contain the distillation of humanity's quest for Freedom and Self Direction
"We The People", with modern restrictions having been visited upon us tenfold, over the restrictions and excesses that King George visited on the first Colonists, need to declare for ourselves that we will no longer tolerate these excesses. That we will, in fact rescue our lawful rights as a free and sovereign people living in unified but sovereign and separate Nation States, that are bound truly and legally under the language and governmental design of the original Constitution.
There were three amendments, deliberately placed into the Constitution to abrogate and in fact subvert, the built in Checks and Balances of the Constitution. They have, as well, completely undermined the enumeration of powers clause. In doing so, just like a snowball rolling and growing down a hill, it has reversed the power flow as originally intended, FROM the States and given the source of control TO the Federal Government.
Over decades, this slow erosion away from our perfect form of government has resulted in our virtual Dictatorship today. A Federal Government powerful over the States and the people, an executive branch that aggressively tramps beyond Constitutional limits. The major players, the root source of our governmental change on course, were the Restoration Amendments known as the 14th, 16th, and 17th.
The 14th is the most insidious, was the first to be used for purposes other than it was originally intended. That intention was only and solely to defend the Citizenship and Voting Rights of the Freed Slaves PERIOD! It has been bastardized since then by being cited (erroneously IMHO) to allow everything from Anchor Babies having Citizenship to the now potential for same sex marriages. In fact it has been the most litigated Amendment ever to secure even more enforcement powers for, and to grow those powers for, the Federal Government.
For a clearer understanding of what the 14th has been transformed into from it's original intent, and how it has been mis-used through litigation, with judges legislating from the bench during that litigation to reverse the intent of the Founding Fathers. This site has the complete explanations http://www.14thamendment.us/ . Read the information before it goes missing like the Ratified Original 13th Amendment did during the reconstruction period.
Therefore; We The People have decided to restore the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands by availing ourselves of the Article V provision in the Constitution, to repeal the various amendments which were ALL proposed solely by the Congress for their own aggrandizements and increased powers, and that have since grown the Federal Government into something that it was never intended to become.
Consider the knowledge and learning that went into the crafting of the Constitution, and why the Framers and Ratifiers left within it the tool to correct any usurpation of it.They were highly educated and intelligent men who were students of both history and human nature. They saw the danger because they had lived it, they left us the solution, why do we not recognize it, why do we fear using it. It is lawful, peaceful, and achievable and completely effective. It all comes down to the Framers and Ratifiers trusting the people more than they trusted the government with it's corrupting influence of power feeding the greed of men.
PART 3 SECESSION?
MUST WE SECEDE? SHOULD WE CONSIDER DISSOLVING OUR UNION? some think so.
Some have suggested it has become the time for all of our citizenry, who are still free from the brainwashing of the progressive-socialist theology, to submit to our Government a modern day Declaration of Independence.
Let us intellectually explore that avenue, not as a call to rebellion, but as an exercise to educate the citizenry in the true power and authority the people wield over the Government.
A modern day Declaration of Independence could read as such;
We the people of the 50 Nation States that have voluntarily banded together to form the United States of America , sovereign States who are committed to mutual defense and economic protections to insure the ability of any and all of our citizens to pursue prosperity through their hard work and initiative without excessive restrictions set on them by an overbearing and over controlling government Hereby declare: If the Federal Government does not cede back it's stolen powers. If it fails to start obeying the Legal Constitutional Strictures, or refuses to Restore the Checks and Balances Forthwith. It is hereby ordered by the people, who are the highest governmental authority in America ; To Immediately return to it's proper sphere of governance which the Founding Fathers intended for it to have. Furthermore, if the Representatives of that Government do not return to obeying their specifically stated Enumerated powers incorporated within the Constitution of the United States, and Honoring their Solemn Oaths of Office, the people will take actions to see their demands are met.;
We The People, will direct our Independent Nation States Legislatures to peacably leave the present Union and form a New Republic. A Republic that will Strengthen Individual and States Rights. Return to the original intent of the written Constitution as the guideline for the New Republic. The Constitution but will mirror the current United States Constitution, but we will start from the beginning and incorporate only the Amendments such as the Original Bill of Right, clarifying the same to forever prevent future generations from "Interpreting" them to change their meanings. Rewrite all controversial areas in plain language, to prevent future Lawyers from obfuscating the original meanings. We will also write some few new areas that meet the criteria of that New Republics Enhanced Constitution while concurrently reviewing current Federal Laws, and voiding all current Federal Laws which do not meet our Criteria for the proper sphere of Federal Government. The States will return to their original position of supremacy and control over the Federal Government. All political and judicial leaders will be required to follow the New Constitution or be relieved of their positions.
Pursuant to that Declaration of intent to secede, We The People cite this as the legal reasoning of why we are allowed to make such a move; First, we must cite the Declaration of Independence as the document that covers the rights of a people to;
1. "dissolve the political bands which have connected them".
2. "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them".
3. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
4. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "
5. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "
All the explanations in those quotations are taken directly from the Declaration of Independence which is our ultimate Moral Authority for the formation of the United States, and placed here to showcase the rights of a people to self determination when their government becomes toxic to those cherished rights.
Next: We move on but only as an exercise for determining the possibility of legal secession from the "Perpetual Union" as a right that was already detailed in the Declaration of Independence that directly led to the formation of that "Perpetual Union". Also to educate the Governmental Representatives what our power and authority over them really consists of.
The Secession Question; As accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body.
This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move. Therefore we believe Lincoln was wrong when he declared the Confederate States as "In Rebellion" and still part of the Union.
Furthermore we base this on the 'Articles of the Confederation' said articles being not legally repealed when the current Constitution was ratified, and therefore we believe the 'Articles of Confederation' has the presumption of legal precedent by predating the Constitution, and not having been repealed before or after the Constitution was ratified and basing this presumption on Common Law.
We specify the section of those articles thusly; This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” ((Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library, Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781, 2008,http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp; accessed June 2012.))
Based on this we declare that Inherent Sovereignty to dissolve ourselves from the Perpetual Union by means of that expressly granted and Codified Sovereignty.
We The People, in the interests of maintaining a peaceful solution to redress our legitimate concerns, will accordingly petition our fellow Nation States within the Union for permission to remove ourselves from that Union which in our considered opinion no longer represents our interests. We are basing that decision on the sections of the Declaration of Independence which is the moral basis for our Nations founding. We will agree that we will only invoke the declared secession valid and enforceable with the express permission of our Sister States. We will do this by requiring the same percentages of votes by our Sister States to approve Secession as the same percentage necessary for ratification of an amendment. We will accord every State that wishes to leave the "Perpetual Union" the right to secede using that peaceful artifice.
We The People, according to the current Constitution, are invested by it as the highest embodiment of government and governmental power and authority, that being codified and protected by the very Constitution itself. We do not take this step lightly, nor do we take if frivolously. We take it because all of our pleas of the the vast majority of our fellow citizens, amounting to approximately 3/4 of the population of the United States, have in fact been denied their lawful desires by the very representatives who were elected expressly to represent their desired cases for incorporation into general law.
We stand in the circumstances that our forebears did before the American Revolution with King George. We seem to be facing King Obama and his Parliament of Congressional Fops who kowtow to his every whim with no regard to the people whom they are legally and honor bound to represent. It is the sickness of modern Progressivism that has brought us to this brink.
Furthermore, if any States decide to Secede, We The People will annex all the Regular Military Assets,and Materials, and all Assets of the National Guard units residing in the respective States. We will take peaceful political control of all the Regular Military and National Guard Bases within those States. We will contract with their support industries within those respective states to supply the necessary items to protect and defend our New Nation.
However if any of the Military or National Guard Personnel stationed within those Seceded States decide they do not want to be part of the New Nation, we will give them leave to remove themselves peaceably to any States that decided not to secede, but they will not be allowed to take their issued equipment with them other than their personal gear and uniforms.
Those States who refuse to join in with us, Fear Not. We contemplate no aggressive actions towards you. We intend to Utilize the Original Constitution as our Guiding Document, in it's Original Form, removing all the Amendments after the Bill of Rights, to be our guiding principles of the New Government. The only other exceptions will be leaving the amendment for the abolition of slavery intact. And a modified amendment that guarantees the right to vote for every Legal Adult Citizen of the United States.
We also intend to revamp our Court system within the New States to remove any justices that have shown they do not adhere to the original Constitution concepts and declared principles of intent. The oaths of office that was taken by the officers and men in the Guard and Military shall be construed to hold valid to the defense of the Original Constitution and it's intent. prior to 1876. The methods and final determinations will be solely up to the New States Legislatures themselves.
The [restored] original constitution along with it's checks and balances will be the rule of law governing our new nation. There will however be, some modifications for clarification to the original Constitution.
First; of those clarifications will be to explain in clear and simple terms that the separation of Church and State is intended to prevent the Government from creating an official religion and not to suppress any citizens Peaceful and non-violent pursuit of their beliefs unless those beliefs run afoul of the Constitutional Laws, said religious deviation will not be allowed to supplant the Constitutional Laws.
Second; The Freedom of Speech will be understood to protect all forms of Political dissident speech, Obnoxious speech, passive non-violent protest is protected. Only specific areas of unprotected speech would be exemplified as shouting Fire! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Deliberate Lies or Mis-Representations as statements of fact. Perjury.
Third; The Second Amendment will be construed to mean that every citizen over the age of majority is the ‘Militia’ and has the right to keep and bear arms up to and including the latest military technology excepting nuclear. The intent and reasoning behind this is to give the Citizens and the States the means to defend themselves against a government that has severely overstepped it's bounds. Provided every peaceful means has been exhausted prior to such use. It is also to be clarified that no government can enact a law that will abridge this right excepting incarcerated persons during their incarceration.
Fourth; The Tenth Amendment will be inviolable with respect to States Rights controlling the Federal Government's Rights and Actions.
Fifth; There will be a court of last resort for citizens who will challenge any governmental action. That court will be comprised of a panel of seven citizens who are chosen from the voter rolls and who will listen to the complaints of the citizen. A transcript of those complaints will be given to knowledgeable legal people who will in turn suggest the legal premises for the panel to decide the case. No lawyers will be admitted at this stage.
Sixth; The Article V section will be expanded to detail the format for any amendment convention regardless if it is called by the Congress or by the States. Said details covering all aspects of those conventions will have to be approved by vote of the citizenry with a 7/8 majority approval to become law.
Should there be a disagreement by any of the parties there will be a public trial with the jury randomly picked from the voter roles with no person excused except those who are physically or intellectually/emotionally unable or incompetent to attend a trial and/or render a verdict. The average citizen will be required to do jury duty.
Further; Any deviation from this format will have to be submitted to the public with both sides adequately represented.
PART 4 CONCLUSION
In conclusion of this exercise, we believe the people need to take steps to ensure the restoration of original Constitutional Principles, and offering a simple choice between the two on the way that may be achieved.
1. Amendment through Article V, and repeal of the 14, 16, and 17 amendments OR
2. A new declaration of intent for Independence followed by secession....
Which one is much simpler and less destructive to the concept of a nation?
Which one offers the less peril to restoration of original intent?
The second speaks to the fear many loudly protest, don't touch the Constitution through repeal or amendments offered by a States Convention because of the danger of changing it too much.
If we don't let the document defend and restore itself we risk far worse by more drastic means of correction? The best conclusion seems obvious.
I ask one more thing; Since all of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were proposed solely by the Congress, how many of them actually benefited the people more than they benefited the expansion of the Federal Government and Congressional power?
In view of that, who is to be trusted with modifying the legal controls over our way of life? The Congress, or the People themselves?
WE THE PEOPLE, need to re-establish the Government based on the old tried and true principles of the Original Constitution, and we need to do it now!
Why Is Day Care Scarce and Unaffordable?
Note: FEE is proud to join millions in celebration of National School Choice Week, January 25–31, 2015.
Social democrats want to nationalize childhood by having government fund and manage universal day care. Social conservatives want the family to be the day care, which is a lovely idea when it’s affordable. Libertarians don’t seem much interested in the subject at all. That leaves virtually no one to tell the truth about the only solution to the shortage and high price of day care: complete deregulation.
Let’s start the discussion right now.
The Obama administration has the idea to model a new program for national day care on a policy from World War II that lasted from 1944 to 1946 in which a mere 130,000 children had their day care covered by the federal government. Here’s what’s strange: right now, the feds (really, taxpayers) pay for 1.3 million kids to be in day care, which means that there are 10 times as many children in such programs now as then. The equivalent of the wartime program is already in place now, and then some. The shortages for those who need the service continue to worsen.
How did this wartime program come about? The federal government had drafted men to march off to foreign lands to kill and be killed. On the home front, wives and moms were drafted into service in factories to cover the country’s productive needs while the men were gone. That left the problem of children. Back in the day, most people lived in close proximity to extended family, and that helped. But for a few working parents, that wasn’t enough.
Tax-funded day care
Tax-funded day care became part of the Community Facilities Act of 1941 (popularly known as the Lanham Act). The Federal Works Agency built centers that became daytime housing for the kids while their moms served the war effort. Regulation was also part of the mix. The federal Office of Education’s Children’s Bureau had a plan: children under the age of 3 were to remain at home; children from 2 to 5 years of age would be in centers with a ratio of 1 adult to 10 children. The standards were never enforced — there was a war on, after all — and the Lanham Act was a dead letter after 1946.
The program was a reproduction of another program that had begun in the New Deal as a job creation measure (part of the Works Project Administration and the Federal Economic Recovery Act, both passed in 1933). It was later suspended when the New Deal fell apart. Neither effort was about children. The rhetoric surrounding these programs was about adults and their jobs: the need to make jobs for nurses, cooks, clerical workers, and teachers.
Obama’s day care solution
Obama wants not only to resurrect this old policy but to make it universal, because day care is way too expensive for families with two working parents. This proposal is piling intervention on intervention; it is not a solution. Do parents really want kids cared for in institutions run the same way as the US Postal Service, the TSA, and the DMV? Parents know how little control they have over local public schools. Do we really want that model expanded to preschoolers?
Still, for all the problems with the Obama proposal, its crafters acknowledge a very real problem: two parents are working in most households today. This reality emerged some 30 years ago after the late 1970s inflation wrecked household income and high taxes robbed wage earners. Two incomes became necessary to maintain living standards, which created a problem with respect to children. Demand for daytime child care skyrocketed.
The shortage of providers is most often described as “acute.” Child care is indeed expensive, if you can find it at all. It averages $1,000 per month in the United States, and in many cities, it’s far pricier. That’s an annual salary on the minimum wage, which is why many people in larger cities find that nearly the whole of the second paycheck is consumed in day care costs — and that’s for just one child. Your net gains are marginal at best. If you have two children, you can forget about it.
Perhaps this is why Pew Research also reports a recent rise in the number of stay-at-home moms. It’s not a cultural change. It’s a matter of economics. And the trends are happening because the options are thinning. Parents are being forced to pick their poison: lower standard of living with only one working spouse, or a lower standard of living with two working spouses. This is a terrible bind for any family with kids.
The reason behind the day care shortage
The real question is one few seem to ask. Why is there a shortage? Why is day care so expensive? We get tennis shoes, carrots, gasoline, dry cleaning, haircuts, manicures, and most other things with no problem. There are infinite options at a range of prices, and they are all affordable. There is no national crisis, for example, about a shortage of gyms. If we are going to find a solution, surely there is a point to understanding the source of the problem.
Here is a principle to use in all aspects of economic policy:
When you find a good or service that is in huge demand, but the supply is so limited to the point that the price goes up and up, look for the regulation that is causing the high price.
This principle applies regardless of the sector, whether transportation, gas, education, food, beer, or day care.
Child care is one of the most regulated industries in the country. The regulatory structures began in 1962 with legislation that required child care facilities to be state-licensed in order to get federal funding grants. As one might expect, 40 percent of the money allocated toward this purpose was spent on establishing licensing procedures rather than funding the actual care, with the result that child care services actually declined after the legislation.
This was an early but obvious case study in how regulation actually reduces access. But the lesson wasn’t learned and regulation intensified as the welfare state grew. Today it is difficult to get over the regulatory barriers to become a provider in the first place. You can’t do it from your home unless you are willing to enter into the gray/black market and accept only cash for your business. Zoning laws prevent residential areas from serving as business locations. Babysitting one or two kids, sure, you can do that and not get caught. But expanding into a public business puts your own life and liberty in danger.
Too many regulations
Beyond that, the piles of regulations extend from the central government to state governments to local governments, coast to coast. It’s a wonder any day cares stay in business at all. As a matter of fact, these regulations have cartelized the industry in ways that would be otherwise unattainable through purely market means. In effect, the child care industry is not competitive; it increasingly tends toward monopoly due to the low numbers of entrants who can scale the regulatory barriers.
There is a book-length set of regulations at the federal level. All workers are required to receive health and safety training in specific areas. The feds mandate adherence to all building, fire, and health codes. All workers have to get comprehensive background checks, including fingerprinting. There are strict and complex rules about the ratio of workers per child, in effect preventing economies of scale from driving down the price. Child labor laws limit the labor pool. And everyone has to agree to constant and random monitoring by bureaucrats from many agencies. Finally, there are all the rules concerning immigration, tax withholding, minimum wages, maximum working hours, health benefits, and vacation times.
All of these regulations have become far worse under the Obama administration — all in the name of helping children. The newest proposal would require college degrees from every day care provider.
And that’s at the federal level. States impose a slew of other regulations that govern the size of playgrounds, the kind of equipment they can have, the depth of the mulch underneath the play equipment, the kinds of medical services for emergencies that have to be on hand, insurance mandates that go way beyond what insurers themselves require, and so much more. The regulations grow more intense as the number of children in the program expands, so that all providers are essentially punished for being successful.
Just as a sample, check out Pennsylvania’s day care regulations. Ask yourself if you would ever become a provider under these conditions.
A couple of years ago, I saw some workers digging around a playground at a local day care and I made an inquiry. It turned out that the day care, just to stay in business, was forced by state regulations to completely reformat its drains, dig new ones, reshape the yard, change the kind of mulch it used, spread out the climbing toys, and add some more foam here and there. I can’t even imagine how much the contractors were paid to do all this, and how much the changes cost overall.
And this was for a well-established, large day care in a commercial district that was already in compliance. Imagine how daunting it would be for anyone who had a perfectly reasonable idea of providing a quality day care service from home or renting out some space to make a happy place to care for kids during the day. It’s nearly unattainable. You set out to serve kids and families but you quickly find that you are serving bureaucrats and law-enforcement agencies.
The economic solution to the day care shortage
Providing day care on a profitable basis is a profession that countless people could do, if only theregulations weren’t so absurdly strict. This whole industry, if deregulated, would be a wonderful enterprise. There really is no excuse for why child care opportunities wouldn’t exist within a few minutes’ drive of every house in the United States. It’s hard to imagine a better at-home business model.
What this industry needs is not subsidies but massive, dramatic, and immediate deregulation at all levels. Prices would fall dramatically. New options would be available for everyone. What is now a problem would vanish in a matter of weeks. It’s a guaranteed solution to a very real problem.
The current system is a problem for everyone, but it disproportionately affects women. It is truly an issue for genuine feminists who care about real freedom. The regulatory state as it stands is attacking the right to produce and consume a service that is important to women and absolutely affects their lives in every way. In the 19th century, these kinds of rules were considered to be a form of subjugation of women. Now we call it the welfare state.
From my reading of the literature on this subject, I’m startled at how small is the recognition of the causal relationship between the regulatory structure and the shortage of providers. It’s almost as if it had never occurred to the many specialists in this area that there might be some cost to forever increasing the mandates, intensifying the inspections, tightening the strictures, and so on.
A rare exception is a 2004 child care study by the Rand Corp. Researchers Randal Heeb and M. Rebecca Kilburn found what should be obvious to anyone who understands economics. “Relatively modest changes in regulations would have large and economically important consequences,” they argue, and “the overall effect of increased regulation might be counter to their advocates’ intentions. Our evidence indicates that state regulations influence parents’ child care decisions primarily through a price effect, which lowers use of regulated child care and discourages labor force participation. We find no evidence for a quality assurance effect.”
This is a mild statement that reinforces what all economic logic suggests. Every regulatory action diminishes market participation. It puts barriers to entry in front of producers and imposes unseen costs on consumers. Providers turn their attention away from pleasing customers and toward compliance. Regulations reduce competition and raise prices. They do not serve the stated objectives of policy makers, though they might serve the deeper interests of the industry’s larger players.
Creating a free market for child care
And so the politicians and activists look at the situation and say: we must do something. It’s true, we must. But we must do the right thing, which is not to create Orwellian, state-funded child care factories that parents cannot control. We must not turn child care into a labyrinthian confusion of thousands of pages of regulations.
We need to make a market for child care as with any other service. Open up, permit free entry and exit, and we’ll see the supposed problem vanish as millions of new providers and parents discover a glorious new opportunity for enterprise and mutual benefit.
But isn’t this laissez-faire solution dangerous for the children?
Reputation and market-based quality control govern so much of our lives today. A restaurant that serves one bad meal can face the crucible at the hands of Yelp reviewers, and one late shipment from an Amazon merchant can ruin a business model. Markets enable other active markets for accountability and intense focus on consumer satisfaction.
It’s even more true of child care. Even now, markets are absolutely scrupulous about accessing quality, as these Yelp reviews of day care in Atlanta, Georgia, show. As for safety, insurers are similarly scrupulous, just as they are with homes and office buildings. As with any market good, a range of quality is the norm, and people pick based on whatever standards they choose. Some parents might think that providers with undergraduate degrees essential, while others might find that qualification irrelevant.
In any case, markets and parents are the best sources for monitoring and judging quality; certainly they have a greater interest in quality assurance than politicians and bureaucrats. If any industry is an obvious case in which self-regulation is wholly viable, child care is it. Indeed, the first modern day care centers of the late 19th century were created by private philanthropists and market entrepreneurs as a better alternative to institutionalizing the children of the destitute and poor new immigrants.
The shortages in this industry are tragic and affect tens of millions of people. They have a cause (regulation) and a solution (deregulation). Before we plunge wholesale into nationalized babysitting, we ought to at least consider a better way.
http://fee.org/blog/detail/why-is-day-care-scarce-and-unaffordable
Social democrats want to nationalize childhood by having government fund and manage universal day care. Social conservatives want the family to be the day care, which is a lovely idea when it’s affordable. Libertarians don’t seem much interested in the subject at all. That leaves virtually no one to tell the truth about the only solution to the shortage and high price of day care: complete deregulation.
Let’s start the discussion right now.
The Obama administration has the idea to model a new program for national day care on a policy from World War II that lasted from 1944 to 1946 in which a mere 130,000 children had their day care covered by the federal government. Here’s what’s strange: right now, the feds (really, taxpayers) pay for 1.3 million kids to be in day care, which means that there are 10 times as many children in such programs now as then. The equivalent of the wartime program is already in place now, and then some. The shortages for those who need the service continue to worsen.
How did this wartime program come about? The federal government had drafted men to march off to foreign lands to kill and be killed. On the home front, wives and moms were drafted into service in factories to cover the country’s productive needs while the men were gone. That left the problem of children. Back in the day, most people lived in close proximity to extended family, and that helped. But for a few working parents, that wasn’t enough.
Tax-funded day care
Tax-funded day care became part of the Community Facilities Act of 1941 (popularly known as the Lanham Act). The Federal Works Agency built centers that became daytime housing for the kids while their moms served the war effort. Regulation was also part of the mix. The federal Office of Education’s Children’s Bureau had a plan: children under the age of 3 were to remain at home; children from 2 to 5 years of age would be in centers with a ratio of 1 adult to 10 children. The standards were never enforced — there was a war on, after all — and the Lanham Act was a dead letter after 1946.
The program was a reproduction of another program that had begun in the New Deal as a job creation measure (part of the Works Project Administration and the Federal Economic Recovery Act, both passed in 1933). It was later suspended when the New Deal fell apart. Neither effort was about children. The rhetoric surrounding these programs was about adults and their jobs: the need to make jobs for nurses, cooks, clerical workers, and teachers.
Obama’s day care solution
Obama wants not only to resurrect this old policy but to make it universal, because day care is way too expensive for families with two working parents. This proposal is piling intervention on intervention; it is not a solution. Do parents really want kids cared for in institutions run the same way as the US Postal Service, the TSA, and the DMV? Parents know how little control they have over local public schools. Do we really want that model expanded to preschoolers?
Still, for all the problems with the Obama proposal, its crafters acknowledge a very real problem: two parents are working in most households today. This reality emerged some 30 years ago after the late 1970s inflation wrecked household income and high taxes robbed wage earners. Two incomes became necessary to maintain living standards, which created a problem with respect to children. Demand for daytime child care skyrocketed.
The shortage of providers is most often described as “acute.” Child care is indeed expensive, if you can find it at all. It averages $1,000 per month in the United States, and in many cities, it’s far pricier. That’s an annual salary on the minimum wage, which is why many people in larger cities find that nearly the whole of the second paycheck is consumed in day care costs — and that’s for just one child. Your net gains are marginal at best. If you have two children, you can forget about it.
Perhaps this is why Pew Research also reports a recent rise in the number of stay-at-home moms. It’s not a cultural change. It’s a matter of economics. And the trends are happening because the options are thinning. Parents are being forced to pick their poison: lower standard of living with only one working spouse, or a lower standard of living with two working spouses. This is a terrible bind for any family with kids.
The reason behind the day care shortage
The real question is one few seem to ask. Why is there a shortage? Why is day care so expensive? We get tennis shoes, carrots, gasoline, dry cleaning, haircuts, manicures, and most other things with no problem. There are infinite options at a range of prices, and they are all affordable. There is no national crisis, for example, about a shortage of gyms. If we are going to find a solution, surely there is a point to understanding the source of the problem.
Here is a principle to use in all aspects of economic policy:
When you find a good or service that is in huge demand, but the supply is so limited to the point that the price goes up and up, look for the regulation that is causing the high price.
This principle applies regardless of the sector, whether transportation, gas, education, food, beer, or day care.
Child care is one of the most regulated industries in the country. The regulatory structures began in 1962 with legislation that required child care facilities to be state-licensed in order to get federal funding grants. As one might expect, 40 percent of the money allocated toward this purpose was spent on establishing licensing procedures rather than funding the actual care, with the result that child care services actually declined after the legislation.
This was an early but obvious case study in how regulation actually reduces access. But the lesson wasn’t learned and regulation intensified as the welfare state grew. Today it is difficult to get over the regulatory barriers to become a provider in the first place. You can’t do it from your home unless you are willing to enter into the gray/black market and accept only cash for your business. Zoning laws prevent residential areas from serving as business locations. Babysitting one or two kids, sure, you can do that and not get caught. But expanding into a public business puts your own life and liberty in danger.
Too many regulations
Beyond that, the piles of regulations extend from the central government to state governments to local governments, coast to coast. It’s a wonder any day cares stay in business at all. As a matter of fact, these regulations have cartelized the industry in ways that would be otherwise unattainable through purely market means. In effect, the child care industry is not competitive; it increasingly tends toward monopoly due to the low numbers of entrants who can scale the regulatory barriers.
There is a book-length set of regulations at the federal level. All workers are required to receive health and safety training in specific areas. The feds mandate adherence to all building, fire, and health codes. All workers have to get comprehensive background checks, including fingerprinting. There are strict and complex rules about the ratio of workers per child, in effect preventing economies of scale from driving down the price. Child labor laws limit the labor pool. And everyone has to agree to constant and random monitoring by bureaucrats from many agencies. Finally, there are all the rules concerning immigration, tax withholding, minimum wages, maximum working hours, health benefits, and vacation times.
All of these regulations have become far worse under the Obama administration — all in the name of helping children. The newest proposal would require college degrees from every day care provider.
And that’s at the federal level. States impose a slew of other regulations that govern the size of playgrounds, the kind of equipment they can have, the depth of the mulch underneath the play equipment, the kinds of medical services for emergencies that have to be on hand, insurance mandates that go way beyond what insurers themselves require, and so much more. The regulations grow more intense as the number of children in the program expands, so that all providers are essentially punished for being successful.
Just as a sample, check out Pennsylvania’s day care regulations. Ask yourself if you would ever become a provider under these conditions.
A couple of years ago, I saw some workers digging around a playground at a local day care and I made an inquiry. It turned out that the day care, just to stay in business, was forced by state regulations to completely reformat its drains, dig new ones, reshape the yard, change the kind of mulch it used, spread out the climbing toys, and add some more foam here and there. I can’t even imagine how much the contractors were paid to do all this, and how much the changes cost overall.
And this was for a well-established, large day care in a commercial district that was already in compliance. Imagine how daunting it would be for anyone who had a perfectly reasonable idea of providing a quality day care service from home or renting out some space to make a happy place to care for kids during the day. It’s nearly unattainable. You set out to serve kids and families but you quickly find that you are serving bureaucrats and law-enforcement agencies.
The economic solution to the day care shortage
Providing day care on a profitable basis is a profession that countless people could do, if only theregulations weren’t so absurdly strict. This whole industry, if deregulated, would be a wonderful enterprise. There really is no excuse for why child care opportunities wouldn’t exist within a few minutes’ drive of every house in the United States. It’s hard to imagine a better at-home business model.
What this industry needs is not subsidies but massive, dramatic, and immediate deregulation at all levels. Prices would fall dramatically. New options would be available for everyone. What is now a problem would vanish in a matter of weeks. It’s a guaranteed solution to a very real problem.
The current system is a problem for everyone, but it disproportionately affects women. It is truly an issue for genuine feminists who care about real freedom. The regulatory state as it stands is attacking the right to produce and consume a service that is important to women and absolutely affects their lives in every way. In the 19th century, these kinds of rules were considered to be a form of subjugation of women. Now we call it the welfare state.
From my reading of the literature on this subject, I’m startled at how small is the recognition of the causal relationship between the regulatory structure and the shortage of providers. It’s almost as if it had never occurred to the many specialists in this area that there might be some cost to forever increasing the mandates, intensifying the inspections, tightening the strictures, and so on.
A rare exception is a 2004 child care study by the Rand Corp. Researchers Randal Heeb and M. Rebecca Kilburn found what should be obvious to anyone who understands economics. “Relatively modest changes in regulations would have large and economically important consequences,” they argue, and “the overall effect of increased regulation might be counter to their advocates’ intentions. Our evidence indicates that state regulations influence parents’ child care decisions primarily through a price effect, which lowers use of regulated child care and discourages labor force participation. We find no evidence for a quality assurance effect.”
This is a mild statement that reinforces what all economic logic suggests. Every regulatory action diminishes market participation. It puts barriers to entry in front of producers and imposes unseen costs on consumers. Providers turn their attention away from pleasing customers and toward compliance. Regulations reduce competition and raise prices. They do not serve the stated objectives of policy makers, though they might serve the deeper interests of the industry’s larger players.
Creating a free market for child care
And so the politicians and activists look at the situation and say: we must do something. It’s true, we must. But we must do the right thing, which is not to create Orwellian, state-funded child care factories that parents cannot control. We must not turn child care into a labyrinthian confusion of thousands of pages of regulations.
We need to make a market for child care as with any other service. Open up, permit free entry and exit, and we’ll see the supposed problem vanish as millions of new providers and parents discover a glorious new opportunity for enterprise and mutual benefit.
But isn’t this laissez-faire solution dangerous for the children?
Reputation and market-based quality control govern so much of our lives today. A restaurant that serves one bad meal can face the crucible at the hands of Yelp reviewers, and one late shipment from an Amazon merchant can ruin a business model. Markets enable other active markets for accountability and intense focus on consumer satisfaction.
It’s even more true of child care. Even now, markets are absolutely scrupulous about accessing quality, as these Yelp reviews of day care in Atlanta, Georgia, show. As for safety, insurers are similarly scrupulous, just as they are with homes and office buildings. As with any market good, a range of quality is the norm, and people pick based on whatever standards they choose. Some parents might think that providers with undergraduate degrees essential, while others might find that qualification irrelevant.
In any case, markets and parents are the best sources for monitoring and judging quality; certainly they have a greater interest in quality assurance than politicians and bureaucrats. If any industry is an obvious case in which self-regulation is wholly viable, child care is it. Indeed, the first modern day care centers of the late 19th century were created by private philanthropists and market entrepreneurs as a better alternative to institutionalizing the children of the destitute and poor new immigrants.
The shortages in this industry are tragic and affect tens of millions of people. They have a cause (regulation) and a solution (deregulation). Before we plunge wholesale into nationalized babysitting, we ought to at least consider a better way.
http://fee.org/blog/detail/why-is-day-care-scarce-and-unaffordable
President Continues Western Land Grab in Alaska
Jan 26, 2015
Press Release
Washington, D.C. (January 26, 2015) – Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would unilaterally seize more than 12 million acres in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as wilderness. Western Caucus Chairman Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large) along with Western Caucus Member Don Young (AK-At Large) released the following statements in response to the announcement:
“By shutting the door on any energy production in the coastal plain of ANWR, President Obama has once again used the stroke of a pen to unilaterally disregard U.S. energy security and the needs of local economies,” said Chairman Lummis. “We all care about the environment, and thanks to American ingenuity we can produce oil on the coastal plain in an environmentally responsible manner, just as Congress always intended. But our President would rather cater to special interests than pursue a truly balanced approach that supports our nation’s energy security and economic opportunity for the people of Alaska. This is no way to treat a sovereign state and is indicative of how our President treats the west in general, mismanaging our public lands to the detriment of our nation and the people who actually live there.”
“This callously planned and politically motivated attack on Alaska by the Obama administration is akin to spitting in our faces and telling us it’s raining outside. As if on command from the most extreme environmentalist elements, this president and his team of D.C. bureaucrats believe they alone know what’s best for Alaska, but this brazen assault on our state and our people will do the complete opposite,” Rep. Young said. “Every time the president undermines the law of the land, he breaks his oath of office and weakens the nation we love. This latest move, in clear violation of ANILCA’s 'no more' clause, and despite the fierce opposition of every Alaska statewide elected official and the vast majority of our people, demonstrates that the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama knows no bounds. Simply put, this wholesale land grab, this widespread attack on our people and our way of life, is disgusting.”
U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan along with Representative Don Young will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. ETto address this announcement.
https://westerncaucus-lummis.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/president-continues-western-land-grab-in-alaska
Press Release
Washington, D.C. (January 26, 2015) – Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would unilaterally seize more than 12 million acres in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as wilderness. Western Caucus Chairman Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large) along with Western Caucus Member Don Young (AK-At Large) released the following statements in response to the announcement:
“By shutting the door on any energy production in the coastal plain of ANWR, President Obama has once again used the stroke of a pen to unilaterally disregard U.S. energy security and the needs of local economies,” said Chairman Lummis. “We all care about the environment, and thanks to American ingenuity we can produce oil on the coastal plain in an environmentally responsible manner, just as Congress always intended. But our President would rather cater to special interests than pursue a truly balanced approach that supports our nation’s energy security and economic opportunity for the people of Alaska. This is no way to treat a sovereign state and is indicative of how our President treats the west in general, mismanaging our public lands to the detriment of our nation and the people who actually live there.”
“This callously planned and politically motivated attack on Alaska by the Obama administration is akin to spitting in our faces and telling us it’s raining outside. As if on command from the most extreme environmentalist elements, this president and his team of D.C. bureaucrats believe they alone know what’s best for Alaska, but this brazen assault on our state and our people will do the complete opposite,” Rep. Young said. “Every time the president undermines the law of the land, he breaks his oath of office and weakens the nation we love. This latest move, in clear violation of ANILCA’s 'no more' clause, and despite the fierce opposition of every Alaska statewide elected official and the vast majority of our people, demonstrates that the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama knows no bounds. Simply put, this wholesale land grab, this widespread attack on our people and our way of life, is disgusting.”
U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan along with Representative Don Young will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. ETto address this announcement.
https://westerncaucus-lummis.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/president-continues-western-land-grab-in-alaska
THE FEDERALIST TODAY
Constitutional Rights and Wrongs
For a politics guided by definitions, not polls or power-plays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By David Corbin and Matt Parks
JANUARY 26, 2015
A week and a half ago, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the two constitutional questions at the heart of the contemporary gay marriage debate:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
How will the Court decide? How should the Court decide?
Richard Weaver, in The Ethics of Rhetoric(1953), highlights and evaluates three types
three types of arguments in political rhetoric: reasoning from consequences, reasoning from circumstances, and reasoning from definition. These correspond well to the three approaches to constitutional interpretation that we can expect from the Court as it takes up these questions.
The Progressive pragmatist judges the case based on the result desired; that is, from its consequences. Now that Progressives have adopted the gay marriage cause–andonly now that they have done so–the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause must require states to sanction and recognize gay marriages.
The establishment moderate judges the case with a political calculator; that is, from its circumstances. Now that gay marriage is legal in thirty-six states (albeit mostly because of federal court action and inaction) and supporters of gay marriage consistently outpoll opponents (though not in a number of individual states)–and onlybecause such is the case–it is time to square the Fourteenth Amendment with this emerging consensus . . . and thereby strengthen that consensus by putting the moral weight of the Constitution behind it.
The problem with both of these rhetorical approaches is obvious: they make the judge both a sovereign and an interested party rather than the impartial arbiter he is intended to be.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
The constitutional jurist, on the other hand, would measure the state laws in view against the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its adoption; that is according to the definition of its terms. Most relevant in this case is the second sentence of Section 1: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Anyone reasonably conversant with the history of the Fourteenth Amendment would readily conclude that mandating gay marriage is far beyond its scope: no one in 1868 could have possibly conceived that they were redefining marriage when they voted to ratify the Amendment. But even leaving that aside, there is nothing inconsistent with “the equal protection of the laws” in a law that allows any one (adult) man to marry any one (adult) woman (not of near relation) and excludes, for all, every other combination.
But then, one might argue, wouldn’t the same logic justify a law that allows any one (adult) man to marry any one (adult) woman (not of near relation) of the same raceand excludes, for all, every other combination? States, of course, had such laws until the last were annulled by the Supreme Court, rightly applying the Fourteenth Amendment against them in its 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia. And, in fact, they had justified them on exactly these grounds, winning an 1883 Supreme Court case (Pace v. Alabama) on that basis. What makes the Loving decision right, the Pace decision wrong, and a decision constitutionalizing gay marriage wrong is the same thing: the nature (i.e. the definition) of marriage. Race is an accidental quality of a marriage partner; sex is an essential quality, bound up in the natural complementarity of men and women. The court mistook the accidental for the essential in upholding laws against interracial marriage; it will mistake the essential for the accidental if it strikes down one man-one woman marriage laws.
This pattern–and the implicit appeal to consequences and circumstances, rather than definition–has been the norm rather than the exception in deciding cases through appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment.
For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Supreme Court rendered the clear meaning of the rights entailed in all four clauses of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment irrelevant, suggesting that Plessy’s inability to ride in a whites-only railcar in no way denied him of his full possession of equal political liberty. Writing for the 7-1 majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown argued:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s [Plessy] argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
The Progressive pragmatist judges the case based on the result desired; that is, from its consequences.
For Justice Brown and the rest of the majority, Plessy’s possession of equal political liberty was a subjective matter both on his part and theirs. Since the Court felt that a “separate but equal” rail car was good enough for the Fourteenth Amendment, the onus was on Plessy to put the same construction on the matter. If he didn’t feel equal because he wasn’t allowed to ride in a whites-only train, too bad: the objective reality that he was denied access to a public railcar was of no consequence. Rather, the Court, in quintessential pragmatic and progressive Olympian terms, proclaimed truth in his case subjective, and the lines of admissible subjectivity, their own.
When the Court reversed course in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), it did so utilizing the same circumstantial and outcome-oriented reasoning that the Plessy Court had employed sixty years prior. It might have ground its decision in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s definition-based Plessy dissent, that rightly asserted that “separate but equal” violates the principle of a “color-blind constitution” in which “the law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surrounding or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” Instead, the Brown Court ruled that societal circumstance and elite preference could no longer ignore the subjective damage done by a “separate but equal” legal regime. American ruling elites had come a long way on the race issue, but not so far as to capture the intellectual and moral essence of Justice Harlan’s brave dissent.
Justice Clarence Thomas demonstrated what might have been (and what yet could be) in an important, though widely ignored, statement on the jurisprudence of civil rights, arguing in his concurring opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that the Brown Court “[Did] not need to rely upon psychological or social science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens according to race. . .that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups.”
The rarity of Thomas-style arguments and the ubiquity of circumstance- and consequence-based constitutional reasoning presents a difficult challenge for those committed to preserving a republican judiciary today. At the time of the founding, Alexander Hamilton argued (in Federalist 81) that the danger of systemic judicial abuse “is in reality a phantom,” given the inherent weakness of the judicial branch and its accountability to Congress through the impeachment power. Unfortunately, his argument, as our experience shows, is much less compelling today, for several reasons Hamilton could not have anticipated.
The Congress can still act in ways that encourage responsible judicial behavior, if it wishes.
In Federalist 80, he argues that the federal courts must have the authority to enforce the limits of the Constitution against state laws–a power that, he acknowledges, can be abused. The limits on the states in the original (pre-Bill of Rights) Constitution were few, however, and the interests of the states directly represented in a Senate comprised of members chosen by state legislators. Today, the Court’s expansive application of the Fourteenth Amendment against state laws has increased exponentially the opportunities for abuse–and the shift to a popularly-elected Senate has decreased the incentives for holding the court accountable for abuses. How often can we expect Congress to provoke a fight with the Court over a usurpation of stateauthority, especially when it may very well like the Court’s judgment?
The Congress can still act in ways that encourage responsible judicial behavior, if it wishes. A careful review of judicial nominees, the use of impeachment where merited, and passing laws that properly define the jurisdiction of the federal courts (as described in Federalist 80 and 81) remain available tools, if some of the institutional motivation for using them has been lost. But the right employment of such tools would likewise require the legislative branch to reason from definition, a prospect more to be dreamed of than expected, given the power that often self-defeating political calculations seem to have over even the most well-intentioned proposals (note to pro-life House Republicans: neither an unborn child’s humanity nor his capacity to feel pain is affected by the circumstances under which he is conceived).
Those wishing to recover republican government, especially those seeking to lead a movement or party, must take the advice of Richard Weaver and engage the larger cause of responsible political argument:
This is a world in which one often gets what one asks for more directly or more literally than one expects. If a leader asks only consequences, he will find himself involved in naked competition for power. If he asks only circumstance, he will find himself intimidated against all vision. But if he asks for principle, he may get that, all tied up and complete, and though purchased at a price, paid for. Therefore it is of first importance whether a leader has the courage to define.
The lesson in all this: As “ideas have consequences,” so will the reasoning we employ to uphold or deny the self-evident truth of human equality continue to have consequences for the American republic.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/26/constitutional-rights-and-wrongs/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=c0e5bf6fc3-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-c0e5bf6fc3-83785165
Fuel the movement to restore America’s founding principles
You are in a strategic position to help Hillsdale regain lost ground by educating millions of citizens about the principles of liberty—necessary for free enterprise to flourish—in 2015.
Hillsdale College has a three-point plan to restore the principles of liberty in our once-great nation. This plan is already underway! Here are the details:
That’s why Hillsdale counts on donations from liberty-loving Americans such as you – who understand and can defend America’s founding principles of liberty.
Will you help Hillsdale College fuel the movement to restore America’s founding principles today?
33 E. College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 | Phone: (517) 437-7341 | Fax: (517) 437-3923 | Privacy PolicyMake your gift to Hillsdale College now see link;
https://online.hillsdale.edu/support/fuel-the-movement?utm_campaign=jan2015appeal&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email1B&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-98lMkKn11Oz0CChgxLlKf_RLUNLB4MoJviTQ9w6C0NsKl44r_iL6EzTjENaKihG3TYAIOWiqZISTQA0xLGoapexoRoig&_hsmi=15730360
Hillsdale College has a three-point plan to restore the principles of liberty in our once-great nation. This plan is already underway! Here are the details:
- Teach college students the principles of liberty underlying the Constitution—based on the idea that rights come from God, not government—which are necessary for the free enterprise system to flourish in America, and send wave after wave of them into influential positions in government, the economy, and our culture.
- Educate millions of Americans about the principles of limited, constitutional government so they are equipped to defend those principles, leading to a restoration of liberty. The College achieves this through Imprimis—sent to millions every year—and online courses such as “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution.”
- Host seminars and training sessions for policy makers and opinion leaders in Washington, D.C. about the Constitution and its principles of liberty. The College achieves this through the work of its Kirby Center on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
That’s why Hillsdale counts on donations from liberty-loving Americans such as you – who understand and can defend America’s founding principles of liberty.
Will you help Hillsdale College fuel the movement to restore America’s founding principles today?
33 E. College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 | Phone: (517) 437-7341 | Fax: (517) 437-3923 | Privacy PolicyMake your gift to Hillsdale College now see link;
https://online.hillsdale.edu/support/fuel-the-movement?utm_campaign=jan2015appeal&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email1B&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-98lMkKn11Oz0CChgxLlKf_RLUNLB4MoJviTQ9w6C0NsKl44r_iL6EzTjENaKihG3TYAIOWiqZISTQA0xLGoapexoRoig&_hsmi=15730360
Help Stop The Federal Governments Overreach and Destruction of States Constitutional Rights
Here is a generic message to be put out in support of a Convention of States Article V Amendment Proposal Convention.
Time To Call Our State Representatives and State Senators! All 50 States even if they have already sent in the petition !
Please, do not look at this and think somebody else will make these calls. They Won’t! It is up to You and Me to make them!.
HERE IS THE MESSAGE: Senator/Representative/Speaker/> I am calling on you to act now on behalf of <Name of your State here> and America, to lead the way back to our founding tenets by filing the Convention of States Project Application immediately! We will not rest until <Your State Name Here> joins the other 32 States filing the Convention of States Application 'This Year'. Tyranny is alive in our land and we are prepared to stand and stop it - we expect YOU to lead the way. Please file and pass The Convention of States Project Application - we have a solution as BIG as the problem. It also will be necessary to enact legislation similar to the model legislation passed by Indiana that prescribes duties and restrictions for delegates to any potential convention to keep it from becoming a runaway convention. Link to Model laws; http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&session=1&request=getBill&docno=224
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&request=getBill&docno=225
One addendum to these model laws should be to have the States add that each State have only one vote per State on the wording of a proposed amendment with 3/4 of the participating States needed to pass/ok the wording before it is passed out for Ratification by the states.This would guarantee equal Representation regardless of the size of the States population. It would also be wise for the States to enact laws governing the Ratification Process they will use if there are none on the books( This must also be strongly conveyed to all 50 States so everything is in place and people like Soros and Bloomberg can't take control over the Convention through their underhanded means.)
You can e-mail them but faxes and calls are better, doing all three is best! Take a look at the message, it doesn't have to be word for word, speak from the heart with firm kindness, make the message your own.
Use this link to find your State Legislatures contact information; http://thomas.loc.gov/home/state-legislatures.html This link will provide all the information needed for Every State to contact and connect you with your State Legislature Representatives.
Don't forget: Our Liberty and Freedom is at stake!
The Tradesman
Ed.Note: I usually don't comment on submissions to the AV site, but with apologies to the Tradesman, I feel this one is of supreme importance! If we ever want to restore the original intent of the constitution and restore the republic, in my considered opinion, this is the way to do it.
Please copy this and distribute it to all of your friends and ask them to do the same, and make the calls and send the faxes and e-mails with you. This must go out to all 50 State Legislatures!
Time To Call Our State Representatives and State Senators! All 50 States even if they have already sent in the petition !
Please, do not look at this and think somebody else will make these calls. They Won’t! It is up to You and Me to make them!.
HERE IS THE MESSAGE: Senator/Representative/Speaker/> I am calling on you to act now on behalf of <Name of your State here> and America, to lead the way back to our founding tenets by filing the Convention of States Project Application immediately! We will not rest until <Your State Name Here> joins the other 32 States filing the Convention of States Application 'This Year'. Tyranny is alive in our land and we are prepared to stand and stop it - we expect YOU to lead the way. Please file and pass The Convention of States Project Application - we have a solution as BIG as the problem. It also will be necessary to enact legislation similar to the model legislation passed by Indiana that prescribes duties and restrictions for delegates to any potential convention to keep it from becoming a runaway convention. Link to Model laws; http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&session=1&request=getBill&docno=224
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&request=getBill&docno=225
One addendum to these model laws should be to have the States add that each State have only one vote per State on the wording of a proposed amendment with 3/4 of the participating States needed to pass/ok the wording before it is passed out for Ratification by the states.This would guarantee equal Representation regardless of the size of the States population. It would also be wise for the States to enact laws governing the Ratification Process they will use if there are none on the books( This must also be strongly conveyed to all 50 States so everything is in place and people like Soros and Bloomberg can't take control over the Convention through their underhanded means.)
You can e-mail them but faxes and calls are better, doing all three is best! Take a look at the message, it doesn't have to be word for word, speak from the heart with firm kindness, make the message your own.
Use this link to find your State Legislatures contact information; http://thomas.loc.gov/home/state-legislatures.html This link will provide all the information needed for Every State to contact and connect you with your State Legislature Representatives.
Don't forget: Our Liberty and Freedom is at stake!
The Tradesman
Ed.Note: I usually don't comment on submissions to the AV site, but with apologies to the Tradesman, I feel this one is of supreme importance! If we ever want to restore the original intent of the constitution and restore the republic, in my considered opinion, this is the way to do it.
Please copy this and distribute it to all of your friends and ask them to do the same, and make the calls and send the faxes and e-mails with you. This must go out to all 50 State Legislatures!
New police radars can 'see' inside homes Brad Heath, USA TODAY6:40 a.m. EST January 20, 2015
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public.
(Photo: L3 Communications)
WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.
"The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union's principal technologist. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."
Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."
By then, however, the technology was hardly new. Federal contract records show the Marshals Service began buying the radars in 2012, and has so far spent at least $180,000 on them.
Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said officials are reviewing the court's decision. He said the Marshals Service "routinely pursues and arrests violent offenders based on pre-established probable cause in arrest warrants" for serious crimes.
The device the Marshals Service and others are using, known as the Range-R, looks like a sophisticated stud-finder. Its display shows whether it has detected movement on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is — but it does not show a picture of what's happening inside. The Range-R's maker, L-3 Communications, estimates it has sold about 200 devices to 50 law enforcement agencies at a cost of about $6,000 each.
WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.
"The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union's principal technologist. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."
Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."
By then, however, the technology was hardly new. Federal contract records show the Marshals Service began buying the radars in 2012, and has so far spent at least $180,000 on them.
Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said officials are reviewing the court's decision. He said the Marshals Service "routinely pursues and arrests violent offenders based on pre-established probable cause in arrest warrants" for serious crimes.
The device the Marshals Service and others are using, known as the Range-R, looks like a sophisticated stud-finder. Its display shows whether it has detected movement on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is — but it does not show a picture of what's happening inside. The Range-R's maker, L-3 Communications, estimates it has sold about 200 devices to 50 law enforcement agencies at a cost of about $6,000 each.
Imgur
Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
The radars were first designed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent the latest example of battlefield technology finding its way home to civilian policing and bringing complex legal questions with it.
Those concerns are especially thorny when it comes to technology that lets the police determine what's happening inside someone's home. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Constitution generally bars police from scanning the outside of a house with a thermal camera unless they have a warrant, and specifically noted that the rule would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed.
In 2013, the court limited police's ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."
Still, the radars appear to have drawn little scrutiny from state or federal courts. The federal appeals court's decision published last month was apparently the first by an appellate court to reference the technology or its implications.
That case began when a fugitive-hunting task force headed by the U.S. Marshals Service tracked a man named Steven Denson, wanted for violating his parole, to a house in Wichita. Before they forced the door open, Deputy U.S. Marshal Josh Mofftestified, he used a Range-R to detect that someone was inside.
Moff's report made no mention of the radar; it said only that officers "developed reasonable suspicion that Denson was in the residence."
Agents arrested Denson for the parole violation and charged him with illegally possessing two firearms they found inside. The agents had a warrant for Denson's arrest but did not have a search warrant. Denson's lawyer sought to have the guns charge thrown out, in part because the search began with the warrantless use of the radar device.
Three judges on the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search, and Denson's conviction, on other grounds. Still, the judges wrote, they had "little doubt that the radar device deployed here will soon generate many questions for this court."
But privacy advocates said they see more immediate questions, including how judges could be surprised by technology that has been in agents' hands for at least two years. "The problem isn't that the police have this. The issue isn't the technology; the issue is always about how you use it and what the safeguards are," said Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Marshals Service has faced criticism for concealing other surveillance tools. Last year, the ACLU obtained an e-mail from a Sarasota, Fla., police sergeant asking officers from another department not to reveal that they had received information from a cellphone-monitoring tool known as a stingray. "In the past, and at the request of the U.S. Marshals, the investigative means utilized to locate the suspect have not been revealed," he wrote, suggesting that officers instead say they had received help from "a confidential source."
William Sorukas, a former supervisor of the Marshals Service's domestic investigations arm, said deputies are not instructed to conceal the agency's high-tech tools, but they also know not to advertise them. "If you disclose a technology or a method or a source, you're telling the bad guys along with everyone else," he said.
Follow investigative reporter Brad Heath on Twitter at @bradheath
Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
The radars were first designed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent the latest example of battlefield technology finding its way home to civilian policing and bringing complex legal questions with it.
Those concerns are especially thorny when it comes to technology that lets the police determine what's happening inside someone's home. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Constitution generally bars police from scanning the outside of a house with a thermal camera unless they have a warrant, and specifically noted that the rule would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed.
In 2013, the court limited police's ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."
Still, the radars appear to have drawn little scrutiny from state or federal courts. The federal appeals court's decision published last month was apparently the first by an appellate court to reference the technology or its implications.
That case began when a fugitive-hunting task force headed by the U.S. Marshals Service tracked a man named Steven Denson, wanted for violating his parole, to a house in Wichita. Before they forced the door open, Deputy U.S. Marshal Josh Mofftestified, he used a Range-R to detect that someone was inside.
Moff's report made no mention of the radar; it said only that officers "developed reasonable suspicion that Denson was in the residence."
Agents arrested Denson for the parole violation and charged him with illegally possessing two firearms they found inside. The agents had a warrant for Denson's arrest but did not have a search warrant. Denson's lawyer sought to have the guns charge thrown out, in part because the search began with the warrantless use of the radar device.
Three judges on the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search, and Denson's conviction, on other grounds. Still, the judges wrote, they had "little doubt that the radar device deployed here will soon generate many questions for this court."
But privacy advocates said they see more immediate questions, including how judges could be surprised by technology that has been in agents' hands for at least two years. "The problem isn't that the police have this. The issue isn't the technology; the issue is always about how you use it and what the safeguards are," said Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Marshals Service has faced criticism for concealing other surveillance tools. Last year, the ACLU obtained an e-mail from a Sarasota, Fla., police sergeant asking officers from another department not to reveal that they had received information from a cellphone-monitoring tool known as a stingray. "In the past, and at the request of the U.S. Marshals, the investigative means utilized to locate the suspect have not been revealed," he wrote, suggesting that officers instead say they had received help from "a confidential source."
William Sorukas, a former supervisor of the Marshals Service's domestic investigations arm, said deputies are not instructed to conceal the agency's high-tech tools, but they also know not to advertise them. "If you disclose a technology or a method or a source, you're telling the bad guys along with everyone else," he said.
Follow investigative reporter Brad Heath on Twitter at @bradheath
The Crowding-Out Tipping Point Increasing economic growth means shrinking government
JANUARY 19, 2015 by JAMES A. DORN
The size and scope of government in the United States today would have been beyond the imagination of the American founders. For more than a century after the Constitution’s ratification, Americans took limits on government power seriously.
At the start of the 20th century, total government spending was less than 10 percent of GDP, with the majority of spending taking place at the state and local levels. In 1900, federal spending was a mere 2.8 percent of GDP compared to 21.1 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, state and local spending stood at 5 percent of GDP in 1900, but reached 11.5 percent in 2014. Overall government spending now stands at nearly 33 percent of GDP.
That tectonic shift is largely due to the growth of entitlements and the regulatory state. Nearly half of federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; government imposes huge regulatory costs on the private sector; and the higher taxes needed to finance big government erode economic incentives to work, save, and invest.
How big is too big?
There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. An overreaching government diminishes economic freedom and limits private exchange opportunities, restricting the range of choices open to individuals.
In a pioneering study of the link between government growth and national wealth, which appeared in the fall 1998 issue of the Cato Journal, economists James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson found that a 10 percentage point increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP decreases real GDP growth by 1 percentage point. Thus, if government spending went from 25 percent of GDP to 35 percent, real GDP growth would slow over the longer term by a full percentage point. They also found that a 10 percentage point increase in the government’s share of GDP lowered private investment by 1.6 percentage points.
Factors of growth
One of their study’s key findings was that secure property rights — which includes a legal system that protects persons and property, enforces contracts, and limits the power of government by a just rule of law — play an important role in promoting economic growth.
The late Bernhard Heitger, an economist at the Kiel Institute for World Economics, more fully developed the positive relationship between property rights and economic growth in his pathbreaking article in the winter 2004 Cato Journal. In that article, Heitger distinguished between proximate and ultimate determinants of economic growth. The former are well known: additions to physical and human capital and technological progress (also known as “total factor productivity”). But Heitger was interested in the question of what drives capital accumulation and innovation. His answer: the structure of property rights and the associated incentives.
Conventional growth theory took private property rights and incentives as givens. Heitger rigorously showed that private property rights and the rule of law are the ultimate sources of economic growth and the wealth of nations. Well-defined private property rights improve efficiency and increase per capita income. In turn, as a nation grows richer, people demand stronger protection of their property rights, advancing institutional change.
Using data from an international cross-section of countries from 1975–95, Heitger found that “a doubling of the property rights index more than doubles per capita income” and that “more secure property rights significantly raise the accumulation of physical and human capital.”
Bauer’s foresight
That outcome would not have surprised Peter Bauer, a pioneer of development economics. He was critical of the simplistic idea that physical capital accumulation is the key determinant of economic growth. As early as 1957, in his classic Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, Bauer noted:
It is misleading to think of investment as the only or the principal determinant of development. Other factors and influences, such as institutional and political forces, the qualities and attitudes of the population, and the supply of complementary resources, are often equally important or even more important.
In the same book, Bauer also anticipated modern endogenous growth theory, stating: “It is more meaningful to say that capital is created in the process of development, rather than that development is a function of capital.” What mattered to Bauer, and to other classical liberals, in the process of development was freedom — namely, the freedom to pursue one’s happiness without government interference except to protect life, liberty, and property. (See James A. Dorn, “Economic Development and Freedom: The Legacy of Peter Bauer.”)
In that sense, Bauer argued that “the principal objective and criterion of economic development” is “the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people.” Free markets — resting on effective private property rights — and free people are thus the ultimate determinants of economic growth. When government expands beyond its core functions, it undermines the primacy of property, diminishes the principle of freedom, and erodes the wealth of nations.
The United States falls
The loss of economic freedom in the United States is revealed in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute along with the Cato Institute and a number of global think tanks. In 2000, the United States was the second most economically free country in the world, based on data from 1998. Today it is ranked 12th, based on 2012 data.
To move up the freedom ladder, the United States needs to change the climate of ideas and recognize the importance of private property rights and the rule of law. A legal framework that safeguards persons and property means incentivizing individuals to take responsibility for their actions and allowing people to learn from their mistakes. It means cutting back the size and scope of government and not bailing out businesses.
The nature of government is coercion; the nature of the market is consent. The “great constitutional charter” that George Washington referred to in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) was intended to bind Congress to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s admonition by stating in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801): “The sum of good government” is “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Wise and frugal
The challenge for the 114th Congress is to return to “a wise and frugal government.” A first step would be to understand the detrimental effects of expanding government power on economic liberties — especially on private property rights. If history has taught us anything, it is that the size and scope of government matter, both for freedom and prosperity.
Read it at; http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-crowding-out-tipping-point?utm_source=Foundation+for+Economic+Education+Current+Contacts&utm_campaign=3084d4ddc5-In_Brief_1_19_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_77ef1bd48e-3084d4ddc5-14101597
At the start of the 20th century, total government spending was less than 10 percent of GDP, with the majority of spending taking place at the state and local levels. In 1900, federal spending was a mere 2.8 percent of GDP compared to 21.1 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, state and local spending stood at 5 percent of GDP in 1900, but reached 11.5 percent in 2014. Overall government spending now stands at nearly 33 percent of GDP.
That tectonic shift is largely due to the growth of entitlements and the regulatory state. Nearly half of federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; government imposes huge regulatory costs on the private sector; and the higher taxes needed to finance big government erode economic incentives to work, save, and invest.
How big is too big?
There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. An overreaching government diminishes economic freedom and limits private exchange opportunities, restricting the range of choices open to individuals.
In a pioneering study of the link between government growth and national wealth, which appeared in the fall 1998 issue of the Cato Journal, economists James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson found that a 10 percentage point increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP decreases real GDP growth by 1 percentage point. Thus, if government spending went from 25 percent of GDP to 35 percent, real GDP growth would slow over the longer term by a full percentage point. They also found that a 10 percentage point increase in the government’s share of GDP lowered private investment by 1.6 percentage points.
Factors of growth
One of their study’s key findings was that secure property rights — which includes a legal system that protects persons and property, enforces contracts, and limits the power of government by a just rule of law — play an important role in promoting economic growth.
The late Bernhard Heitger, an economist at the Kiel Institute for World Economics, more fully developed the positive relationship between property rights and economic growth in his pathbreaking article in the winter 2004 Cato Journal. In that article, Heitger distinguished between proximate and ultimate determinants of economic growth. The former are well known: additions to physical and human capital and technological progress (also known as “total factor productivity”). But Heitger was interested in the question of what drives capital accumulation and innovation. His answer: the structure of property rights and the associated incentives.
Conventional growth theory took private property rights and incentives as givens. Heitger rigorously showed that private property rights and the rule of law are the ultimate sources of economic growth and the wealth of nations. Well-defined private property rights improve efficiency and increase per capita income. In turn, as a nation grows richer, people demand stronger protection of their property rights, advancing institutional change.
Using data from an international cross-section of countries from 1975–95, Heitger found that “a doubling of the property rights index more than doubles per capita income” and that “more secure property rights significantly raise the accumulation of physical and human capital.”
Bauer’s foresight
That outcome would not have surprised Peter Bauer, a pioneer of development economics. He was critical of the simplistic idea that physical capital accumulation is the key determinant of economic growth. As early as 1957, in his classic Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, Bauer noted:
It is misleading to think of investment as the only or the principal determinant of development. Other factors and influences, such as institutional and political forces, the qualities and attitudes of the population, and the supply of complementary resources, are often equally important or even more important.
In the same book, Bauer also anticipated modern endogenous growth theory, stating: “It is more meaningful to say that capital is created in the process of development, rather than that development is a function of capital.” What mattered to Bauer, and to other classical liberals, in the process of development was freedom — namely, the freedom to pursue one’s happiness without government interference except to protect life, liberty, and property. (See James A. Dorn, “Economic Development and Freedom: The Legacy of Peter Bauer.”)
In that sense, Bauer argued that “the principal objective and criterion of economic development” is “the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people.” Free markets — resting on effective private property rights — and free people are thus the ultimate determinants of economic growth. When government expands beyond its core functions, it undermines the primacy of property, diminishes the principle of freedom, and erodes the wealth of nations.
The United States falls
The loss of economic freedom in the United States is revealed in the annual Economic Freedom of the World Report, published by the Fraser Institute along with the Cato Institute and a number of global think tanks. In 2000, the United States was the second most economically free country in the world, based on data from 1998. Today it is ranked 12th, based on 2012 data.
To move up the freedom ladder, the United States needs to change the climate of ideas and recognize the importance of private property rights and the rule of law. A legal framework that safeguards persons and property means incentivizing individuals to take responsibility for their actions and allowing people to learn from their mistakes. It means cutting back the size and scope of government and not bailing out businesses.
The nature of government is coercion; the nature of the market is consent. The “great constitutional charter” that George Washington referred to in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) was intended to bind Congress to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson reiterated Washington’s admonition by stating in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801): “The sum of good government” is “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Wise and frugal
The challenge for the 114th Congress is to return to “a wise and frugal government.” A first step would be to understand the detrimental effects of expanding government power on economic liberties — especially on private property rights. If history has taught us anything, it is that the size and scope of government matter, both for freedom and prosperity.
Read it at; http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-crowding-out-tipping-point?utm_source=Foundation+for+Economic+Education+Current+Contacts&utm_campaign=3084d4ddc5-In_Brief_1_19_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_77ef1bd48e-3084d4ddc5-14101597
The Socio-Cultural & Religious/Political Wars
ConcerningThe Socio-Cultural & Religious/Political Wars- If you Noticed The Dual Headers,That Is Because This Editorial Is A Joint Effort By Lady Boots and The Tradesman.
We are, in our Nation today, combined in a Political/Cultural/Religious war of attrition. Probable Genocide awaits for us as a consequence if we do nothing to counteract the invasion of a fanatical enemy.
This dire scenario is compounded by the Elitist factions that arrogantly and foolishly believe that they are controlling that fanatical enemy. They are sorely mistaken in their irrational assumption. The fanatical enemy has been around since long before any of the modern day elites, who want world conquest, ironically, just like the enemy does. Should they succeed in breaking us, then they will become the next target of the fanatics, once the first lines of defense are brought to their knees, the useful parasites will next be exterminated, once their usefulness is exhausted and they don't comply with the fanatics lifestyle mandates and religious demands.
Consider the political/cultural/religious war being waged basically by 'Islam' against the West,Christianity,and Judaism. This is not the first time 'Islam' has tried to expand by the point of a sword. Look to historical tradition, periodically come the rises and the conquests. At one time the 'Islamics' had conquered Two Thirds of the known world. Fortunately, in the past there were people and political groups that opposed them and pushed them back from that position. What we have today are groups of elites that are trying to use them for the elitist conquest of the whole world, thinking the end result will bring in an age of totalitarian world wide oppression. Under their leadership.
What those Elites do not acknowledge is, that they are not in control of the 'Islamics'. They too will fall to their swords eventually, as all others before them will have to, if we do not fight back-and fight back effectively. Fire with fire. Will it take a war of genocidal-like extinction to alleviate the threat? Hopefully, although I do not believe there are any more so-called Moderates, if they do exist, will they finally find enough courage and feel enough outrage at the vicious animals who are leading the different Radicals factions of the world. Everyday the news brings to us, ever more destructive acts of violence. Violence United under caliphate that seeks to oppose and depose all others, no matter the country or the government.
The Elites are Progressive Socialists. Progressive Socialism espouse that any rights given to individuals are given conditionally, rights are never-ever absolute or basic and unalienable. Rather than government given rights such as Liberty to go our own way without interference from the Government as long as we don't step on others rights while doing that. Conversely, the Progressive Socialists believe that ALL Rights are government given, and they only apply to groups not individuals.
The form of Progressive Socialism that is attempting to be imposed on us mirrors the European Model that has always treated people as subjects. That portion of the model probably carried over from when Europe was ruled by Kings and not by Laws. The really bad part about that form of Socialism is the people are subjects of the overwhelming power of the Government to enforce their edicts with violence. The people are never in the halls of power considered to be the masters of their own fates. See how the two dissimilar groups of the Fanatics and the Socialists are basically one and the same in their methods of controlling others?
Consider some of the causes of war on a strictly anthropological standpoint. Mankind has risen to become the apex predator on this planet, and still competes with other predators in both the animal kingdom and with other human predators in society. From a strictly biological standpoint war is good for survival of the fittest even though it causes many deaths of individuals, it also strengthens the individual groups. Wars also act to put pressure on the cultural integrity of Political Subdivisions (countries) and on geographical territories by increasing hegemony over larger areas. That in turn increases the survivability of the groups that win. It increases the resources and control over more territory and the ability to enforce cultural changes in that expanded territory.
Unfortunately many people have for generations been brainwashed to believe they prefer to be kept like serfs rather than fending for themselves. In fact a whole cottage industry has sprung up to cater to them in return for them to Obey Blindly whatever edict or stricture is passed on to them to do.
For myself, I'd rather live free or die than submit to either the Fanatics or the Socialists demands that I follow whatever whim strikes their fancy. I believe my current Freedoms have been handed down to my through the sacrifices and deaths of those who came before fighting for those God given rights. I in turn must treat those rights as a sacred trust to defend even with my very life so I may pass them down to posterity.
The fanatics are using a form of predation on us that will end in disaster for us unless we decide to do what has to be done to stop that predation. Based on the experiences of the total war of WWII, we must decide if we will raise the cost of them preying on us by attacking the reasons they want to exert their hegemony over us. As cruel and inhuman as this sounds we must use the same tactics against them as they are using against us until they cry for peace.
That means to exert ourselves in a total war scenario that attacks their hearth and home killing their families, spouses, and children. When we have reduced their numbers sufficiently they will see that for them to continue doing the same to us is futile and will cost them everything they hold dear. Many will condemn this as brutal and inhuman, but I remind you that is exactly what they are doing to us. They Consider every Man, Woman, and Child down to and including the New Born Baby's as a military enemy to be destroyed and they continuously act on that consideration.
They are the ones who started this genocidal war centuries ago by following a perverted evil being with a rotted soul who started up this Insanity, so he could fulfill his perverted tastes and clothe his sickness in the guise of a Religion that supposedly had the sanctions of God (I personally believe it was in fact Satan that inspired him) to commit these perverted horrendous inhuman animalistic acts. Actually even animals would not do the savage and monstrous things he has codified as righteous actions permissible and preferential actions for members of his satanic cult.
I believe that it is also my charge to instruct the generations that follow me in the truth about what we stand for and charge them to do the same in turn. I am ashamed of my generation for forgetting that or not believing it because of their pursuit of hedonistic pleasures instead of being the guardians they were supposed to be. Even worse the following generation has been flim-flammed into believing that they no longer have to worry about such things because the beneficent Government will care for them and preserve their rights from cradle to grave. They can't see the lie in that premise.
We have a leader that has been programmed with that propaganda from both the Religious aspect as well as the political aspects who is leading us into disaster and actually has stated he will side with the enemy. He has proven that by his actions over and over again. The remainder of our leadership is either too concerned with their personal fortunes and positions of power, or are completely oblivious to what is actually happening to the last bastion of true Liberty and Freedom in the world. We must find a way to combat both these problems.
We will have to think outside the box so to speak and not start any aggressive actions or we will be savagely suppressed and will lose everything to corrupt powers that be. We must let them strike first and then we will be morally and legally able to strike back with appropriate force to defend ourselves and our life style. Even doing that we will be condemned by those corrupt powers so we must be ready to follow through and clean out the cess-pit our government has become. We must restore the Rule of Law first and foremost. Then we must restore the Republic to what it was intended to be.
We can do that peacefully through amending our Constitution back to it's original intent complete with all the checks and balances back in place. Should the Government attack us or decide to remove the protections to our Liberty and Unalienable Rights from the Constitution, we have every moral and legal right to defend ourselves from it, and to replace it with a government that does what the people want bound only by Constitutional Law.
We are, in our Nation today, combined in a Political/Cultural/Religious war of attrition. Probable Genocide awaits for us as a consequence if we do nothing to counteract the invasion of a fanatical enemy.
This dire scenario is compounded by the Elitist factions that arrogantly and foolishly believe that they are controlling that fanatical enemy. They are sorely mistaken in their irrational assumption. The fanatical enemy has been around since long before any of the modern day elites, who want world conquest, ironically, just like the enemy does. Should they succeed in breaking us, then they will become the next target of the fanatics, once the first lines of defense are brought to their knees, the useful parasites will next be exterminated, once their usefulness is exhausted and they don't comply with the fanatics lifestyle mandates and religious demands.
Consider the political/cultural/religious war being waged basically by 'Islam' against the West,Christianity,and Judaism. This is not the first time 'Islam' has tried to expand by the point of a sword. Look to historical tradition, periodically come the rises and the conquests. At one time the 'Islamics' had conquered Two Thirds of the known world. Fortunately, in the past there were people and political groups that opposed them and pushed them back from that position. What we have today are groups of elites that are trying to use them for the elitist conquest of the whole world, thinking the end result will bring in an age of totalitarian world wide oppression. Under their leadership.
What those Elites do not acknowledge is, that they are not in control of the 'Islamics'. They too will fall to their swords eventually, as all others before them will have to, if we do not fight back-and fight back effectively. Fire with fire. Will it take a war of genocidal-like extinction to alleviate the threat? Hopefully, although I do not believe there are any more so-called Moderates, if they do exist, will they finally find enough courage and feel enough outrage at the vicious animals who are leading the different Radicals factions of the world. Everyday the news brings to us, ever more destructive acts of violence. Violence United under caliphate that seeks to oppose and depose all others, no matter the country or the government.
The Elites are Progressive Socialists. Progressive Socialism espouse that any rights given to individuals are given conditionally, rights are never-ever absolute or basic and unalienable. Rather than government given rights such as Liberty to go our own way without interference from the Government as long as we don't step on others rights while doing that. Conversely, the Progressive Socialists believe that ALL Rights are government given, and they only apply to groups not individuals.
The form of Progressive Socialism that is attempting to be imposed on us mirrors the European Model that has always treated people as subjects. That portion of the model probably carried over from when Europe was ruled by Kings and not by Laws. The really bad part about that form of Socialism is the people are subjects of the overwhelming power of the Government to enforce their edicts with violence. The people are never in the halls of power considered to be the masters of their own fates. See how the two dissimilar groups of the Fanatics and the Socialists are basically one and the same in their methods of controlling others?
Consider some of the causes of war on a strictly anthropological standpoint. Mankind has risen to become the apex predator on this planet, and still competes with other predators in both the animal kingdom and with other human predators in society. From a strictly biological standpoint war is good for survival of the fittest even though it causes many deaths of individuals, it also strengthens the individual groups. Wars also act to put pressure on the cultural integrity of Political Subdivisions (countries) and on geographical territories by increasing hegemony over larger areas. That in turn increases the survivability of the groups that win. It increases the resources and control over more territory and the ability to enforce cultural changes in that expanded territory.
Unfortunately many people have for generations been brainwashed to believe they prefer to be kept like serfs rather than fending for themselves. In fact a whole cottage industry has sprung up to cater to them in return for them to Obey Blindly whatever edict or stricture is passed on to them to do.
For myself, I'd rather live free or die than submit to either the Fanatics or the Socialists demands that I follow whatever whim strikes their fancy. I believe my current Freedoms have been handed down to my through the sacrifices and deaths of those who came before fighting for those God given rights. I in turn must treat those rights as a sacred trust to defend even with my very life so I may pass them down to posterity.
The fanatics are using a form of predation on us that will end in disaster for us unless we decide to do what has to be done to stop that predation. Based on the experiences of the total war of WWII, we must decide if we will raise the cost of them preying on us by attacking the reasons they want to exert their hegemony over us. As cruel and inhuman as this sounds we must use the same tactics against them as they are using against us until they cry for peace.
That means to exert ourselves in a total war scenario that attacks their hearth and home killing their families, spouses, and children. When we have reduced their numbers sufficiently they will see that for them to continue doing the same to us is futile and will cost them everything they hold dear. Many will condemn this as brutal and inhuman, but I remind you that is exactly what they are doing to us. They Consider every Man, Woman, and Child down to and including the New Born Baby's as a military enemy to be destroyed and they continuously act on that consideration.
They are the ones who started this genocidal war centuries ago by following a perverted evil being with a rotted soul who started up this Insanity, so he could fulfill his perverted tastes and clothe his sickness in the guise of a Religion that supposedly had the sanctions of God (I personally believe it was in fact Satan that inspired him) to commit these perverted horrendous inhuman animalistic acts. Actually even animals would not do the savage and monstrous things he has codified as righteous actions permissible and preferential actions for members of his satanic cult.
I believe that it is also my charge to instruct the generations that follow me in the truth about what we stand for and charge them to do the same in turn. I am ashamed of my generation for forgetting that or not believing it because of their pursuit of hedonistic pleasures instead of being the guardians they were supposed to be. Even worse the following generation has been flim-flammed into believing that they no longer have to worry about such things because the beneficent Government will care for them and preserve their rights from cradle to grave. They can't see the lie in that premise.
We have a leader that has been programmed with that propaganda from both the Religious aspect as well as the political aspects who is leading us into disaster and actually has stated he will side with the enemy. He has proven that by his actions over and over again. The remainder of our leadership is either too concerned with their personal fortunes and positions of power, or are completely oblivious to what is actually happening to the last bastion of true Liberty and Freedom in the world. We must find a way to combat both these problems.
We will have to think outside the box so to speak and not start any aggressive actions or we will be savagely suppressed and will lose everything to corrupt powers that be. We must let them strike first and then we will be morally and legally able to strike back with appropriate force to defend ourselves and our life style. Even doing that we will be condemned by those corrupt powers so we must be ready to follow through and clean out the cess-pit our government has become. We must restore the Rule of Law first and foremost. Then we must restore the Republic to what it was intended to be.
We can do that peacefully through amending our Constitution back to it's original intent complete with all the checks and balances back in place. Should the Government attack us or decide to remove the protections to our Liberty and Unalienable Rights from the Constitution, we have every moral and legal right to defend ourselves from it, and to replace it with a government that does what the people want bound only by Constitutional Law.
Van T. Barfoot died
Remember the guy who wouldn't take
the flag pole down on his Virginia
property a while back?
You might remember the news story several
months ago about a crotchety old man in
Virginia who defied his local Homeowners
Association, and refused to take down the
flag pole on his property along with the large
American flag he flew on it.
Now we learn who that old man was.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in
Edinburg , Texas . That probably didn't make
news back then.
But twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944,
near Carano , Italy , that same Van T. Barfoot,
who had in 1940 enlisted in the U.S. Army, set
out alone to flank German machine gun
positions from which gunfire was raining
down on his fellow soldiers.
His advance took him through a minefield but
having done so, he proceeded to single-handedly
take out three enemy machine gun positions,
returning with 17 prisoners of war.
the flag pole down on his Virginia
property a while back?
You might remember the news story several
months ago about a crotchety old man in
Virginia who defied his local Homeowners
Association, and refused to take down the
flag pole on his property along with the large
American flag he flew on it.
Now we learn who that old man was.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in
Edinburg , Texas . That probably didn't make
news back then.
But twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944,
near Carano , Italy , that same Van T. Barfoot,
who had in 1940 enlisted in the U.S. Army, set
out alone to flank German machine gun
positions from which gunfire was raining
down on his fellow soldiers.
His advance took him through a minefield but
having done so, he proceeded to single-handedly
take out three enemy machine gun positions,
returning with 17 prisoners of war.
And if that weren't enough for a day's work, he later
took on and destroyed three German tanks
sent to retake the machine gun positions.
took on and destroyed three German tanks
sent to retake the machine gun positions.
That probably didn't make much news either,
given the scope of the war, but it did earn
Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a Colonel after
also serving in Korea and Vietnam , a well
deserved Congressional Medal of Honor.
given the scope of the war, but it did earn
Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a Colonel after
also serving in Korea and Vietnam , a well
deserved Congressional Medal of Honor.
He was promoted to 2nd Lieutenant,
earned theMedal of Honor while serving
with L Company 157th Infantry Regiment
earned theMedal of Honor while serving
with L Company 157th Infantry Regiment
What did make news...Was hisNeighborhood
Association's quibblewith how the 90-year-old
veteran chose to fly the American flag outside
his suburban Virginia home. Seems the HOA rules
said it was OK to fly a flag on a house-mounted
bracket, but, for decorum, items such as
Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were "unsuitable".
Association's quibblewith how the 90-year-old
veteran chose to fly the American flag outside
his suburban Virginia home. Seems the HOA rules
said it was OK to fly a flag on a house-mounted
bracket, but, for decorum, items such as
Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were "unsuitable".
Van Barfoot had been denied a permit for
the pole, but erected it anyway and was facing
court action unless he agreed to take it down.
the pole, but erected it anyway and was facing
court action unless he agreed to take it down.
Then the HOA story made national TV,
and the Neighborhood Association rethought
its position and agreed to indulge this
aging hero who dwelt among them.
and the Neighborhood Association rethought
its position and agreed to indulge this
aging hero who dwelt among them.
"In the time I have left", he said to the
Associated Press, "I plan to continue
to fly the American flag without interference."
As well he should.
And if any of his neighbors had taken a notion to
contest him further, they might have done well to
read his Medal of Honor citation first. Seems it
indicates Mr. Van Barfoot wasn't particularly
good at backing down.
contest him further, they might have done well to
read his Medal of Honor citation first. Seems it
indicates Mr. Van Barfoot wasn't particularly
good at backing down.
WE ONLY LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE! AND, BECAUSE OF OLD MEN LIKE VAN BARFOOT!
This man is one of the Greatest Generation.
Ed.Note: We as Americans Desperately need to return to the standards, morals, honor and bravery that was once the accepted norm in that fast fading generation. If we don't do that, we will have betrayed our heritage,our future generations, and all our forebears fought and died for!
It’s Oath of Office Time Again
After months of campaigning, the winners are eager to get on with the political art of ruling. The weeks after the election often include wild and debauched celebrations, promises broken and calling in chips and favors. So much to remember with a fuzzy brain as the euphoria wears off.
Like fasting before receiving Communion, the oath taker should be in a sober and solemn state of mind. The responsibilities to the people and the Constitution that protects them are onerous at worst and joyful at best. The demands of the electorate, especially those who expect monetary gain or special treatment over others are fraught with temptation and frustration.
So what is the oath? – A solemn promise or a rite of passage to the exercise of power and greed?
Like fasting before receiving Communion, the oath taker should be in a sober and solemn state of mind. The responsibilities to the people and the Constitution that protects them are onerous at worst and joyful at best. The demands of the electorate, especially those who expect monetary gain or special treatment over others are fraught with temptation and frustration.
So what is the oath? – A solemn promise or a rite of passage to the exercise of power and greed?
Since lying has become an acceptable art form, we must hold the solemn oath takers to protect and defend the Constitution as their pledge of honor and responsibility. Judging by the actions of elected officials of both parties today, the idea of committing treason over intentional failure to uphold the Constitution doesn’t stir the soul scarred with a seared conscience.
The oath to be taken by the President on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution. It reads:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The military officer’s oath is similar. Solemn oaths are very serious business. It places in the oath taker’s hands power over the lives and welfare of 350 million people, each with their own hopes and dreams.
With the advent of the “Progressive” movement, the need to protect the Constitution against domestic enemies has yet to reach the consciousness of most voters – even “progressives” who delude each other of their intellectual superiority over the wisdom of the voters.
The real strength of the Constitution is found in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Founders saw swearing an oath upon the Bible was natural and binding.
Today, we have three problems:
1. Swearing on the Bible (or not) with no intention of upholding any solemn promise.
2. Swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Qur’an is untenable because it is an opposing theocratic religious code of laws (mosque and state) strictly observed with severe, often deadly penalties. (ACLU – Where are you?)
3. After years of political correctness, misguided social justice and divisive interpretations of diversity, the American people are conditioned to accept totalitarian rule and dependency on a government incapable of love.
We are engaged in all-out spiritual warfare. While political strategies are critical, the war is fought on the spiritual plane. Ask the enemies who see your death as a ticket to heaven or the blood of the unborn oozing between their teeth.
Muslim writers say, "When the locust swarms darken vast countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words, "We are God's host, each of us has 99 eggs, and if we had 100, we should lay waste to the world and all that is in it." Sadly, the evidence is now overwhelming – under Obama, the United States of America has apparently become Islam’s “100th egg!” Just ask your local bomb-vested jihadi.
The oath to be taken by the President on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution. It reads:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The military officer’s oath is similar. Solemn oaths are very serious business. It places in the oath taker’s hands power over the lives and welfare of 350 million people, each with their own hopes and dreams.
With the advent of the “Progressive” movement, the need to protect the Constitution against domestic enemies has yet to reach the consciousness of most voters – even “progressives” who delude each other of their intellectual superiority over the wisdom of the voters.
The real strength of the Constitution is found in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Founders saw swearing an oath upon the Bible was natural and binding.
Today, we have three problems:
1. Swearing on the Bible (or not) with no intention of upholding any solemn promise.
2. Swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Qur’an is untenable because it is an opposing theocratic religious code of laws (mosque and state) strictly observed with severe, often deadly penalties. (ACLU – Where are you?)
3. After years of political correctness, misguided social justice and divisive interpretations of diversity, the American people are conditioned to accept totalitarian rule and dependency on a government incapable of love.
We are engaged in all-out spiritual warfare. While political strategies are critical, the war is fought on the spiritual plane. Ask the enemies who see your death as a ticket to heaven or the blood of the unborn oozing between their teeth.
Muslim writers say, "When the locust swarms darken vast countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words, "We are God's host, each of us has 99 eggs, and if we had 100, we should lay waste to the world and all that is in it." Sadly, the evidence is now overwhelming – under Obama, the United States of America has apparently become Islam’s “100th egg!” Just ask your local bomb-vested jihadi.
We must act or our liberties will disappear and the chains will become immovable. Are we to accept the yoke of totalitarian (Sorosian or Islamic) bondage? Or do we rein in a government out-of-control that is unable and unwilling to restrict itself? We saw how waiting for another election is playing out in spite of the will of the people so profoundly stated.
It boils down to Beauty and love – not debauchery and use of others. The opposite of love is not hate, but use! One who truly loves cannot use the beloved, willing to lay down one’s life for her/him. That is why oaths are serious statements, not rites of passage. Now we must pray and act – and demand that our elected officials and bureaucrats take their oaths seriously or be summarily ejected from office.
Gerald V. Todd
It boils down to Beauty and love – not debauchery and use of others. The opposite of love is not hate, but use! One who truly loves cannot use the beloved, willing to lay down one’s life for her/him. That is why oaths are serious statements, not rites of passage. Now we must pray and act – and demand that our elected officials and bureaucrats take their oaths seriously or be summarily ejected from office.
Gerald V. Todd
Fishing a Mile in Another Man's Hat
December 07, 2014 6:00 am • Michael Jamison and Bob Brown
Lawmakers must heed locally grown solutions
We’re a strange pair of fishing buddies, the retired Republican lawmaker and the environmentalist, but we sure do enjoy each other’s company. Together, we tramp through thickets, scramble down riverbanks, wade icy currents -- all for the shared pleasure of laying a fly in front of a handsome westslope cutt.
This fall, as we bushwhacked into a secret hole, we couldn’t help but notice each other’s hats: the veteran GOP campaigner was wearing a ballcap touting Trout Unlimited; the conservationist was bearing the badge of the local lumber mill. Maybe that’s why we get on so well. We’re willing to fish a mile in another man’s hat.
We both believe, generally, that there’s room enough in Montana’s wilds for all sorts of folks. We agree that there’s room enough for compromise, that it’s better to talk than to shout, that we’d rather negotiate than litigate. And we both believe that when neighbors cooperate in good faith to help manage their own backyards, then the powers that be should pay very close attention, and think twice before tipping the scales on behalf of special interests.
Together, when we weren’t chasing trout, we spent a year working alongside a wild diversity of opinionated folk, hammering out a unanimous land-use agreement for forest lands west of Glacier National Park. We partnered with Democrats and Republicans, motorheads and wildernuts, slednecks and timber beasts. There were bikers and businessmen, backcountry guides and frontcountry realtors. Hunters, horsemen and anglers joined to express support. The Montana Logging Association was at the table, and so was the Montana Wilderness Association. Together, wary but in good faith, we set a goal of unanimous consent and a deadline of the first day of elk season. We worked darned hard over a whole year full of lasagna and venison burgers and chili feeds and conversations.
Across Montana, similar partnerships have been working to solve thorny federal land-management problems -- restoring forests, protecting wildlife, guaranteeing recreational access and improving local economies. These are difficult rooms to work in, where long-term adversaries are plodding through years of distrust toward common ground. We all want jobs and clean water, forests full of trails and big elk. And who better to help assure that than those of us who live, work and play on these world-class landscapes?
Locally built, collaboratively developed solutions -- implemented and directed by professional land stewards -- are the most enduring and beneficial of all, because they take into account local conditions and needs, while at the same time balancing national rules and regulations. When supported by lawmakers and implemented by federal land management agencies, these local partnerships provide powerful solutions.
Collaborative efforts between neighbors already have produced tremendous gains for Montana – created jobs in the woods, restored habitats, protected our landscapes, livelihoods and lifestyles -- but they cannot succeed without buy-in from decision makers. If the powers-that-be expect ordinary folk to put new ideas on the table, they must also be ready to employ those ideas on the ground. Land managers must be open to creative proposals, and lawmakers must provide agencies the flexibility to enact those plans.
There is, in fact, room enough for most all of us in Montana’s wilds. We have proven that, unanimously, in our own backyard. But without support, all this hard work may ultimately come to naught. We cannot allow the heavy thumb of special interests, or agency bias, or political gridlock, to tip the scales we have in good faith worked so hard to balance. Montana’s decision makers need to trust Montanans, and to recognize, always, the value of fishing a mile of river in another man’s hat.
Michael Jamison of Whitefish was a founding participant of the Whitefish Range Partnership. A writer and conservationist, he serves as Glacier program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.
Bob Brown of Whitefish served as Chair of the Whitefish Range Partnership. He is a former Montana secretary of state and former president of the Montana state Senate.
http://helenair.com/news/opinion/lawmakers-must-heed-locally-grown-solutions/article_20311562-f8b4-58ec-ab53-1ed9b0d163e2.html
LadyBoots Commentary;
As an advocate for the return of, and proponent of relinquishment to, federal 'claim' of western states lands:
I, and many more like minds and hearts, are committed to broadening associations and cooperative efforts that support best practices, collaborative process, multiple use, shared management, and responsible stewardship, of our public lands. Such basic self-determination should be locally decided, sponsored and supported, under the principle jurisdiction of our local and state governments, with citizen advisory involvement.
We believe in inviting all voices and stakeholders to the conversation and decision making table, and are equally committed to negotiating with honesty and in good faith with one another toward common goals and responsible stewardship.
We respect the voices of all multiple users and public interests. That places us squarely in contrast to so-called protection and preservation advocates that take positions which ignore the rights of the states, private citizens and their property, and the public right to enjoy the beauty and the resources in our states, in pursuit of a single agenda...closure through exclusive federal jurisdiction, executive action, and management policy.
Our federal coffers are empty. We have mortgaged three generations of America's future against our current national debt. The federal government 'claims' ownership of half (on average) of lands in EACH western state. Look at the inequality, in a nation sharply focused on that very issue. Intention of more future federal designations of our lands has been declared. Enough.
Existing federal lands are at risk now to lack of funding, neglected management, and a spark set to dead forests from a lightening strike flashing from inside Nature's thunderhead. (See map at the end of this article)
Consider a new perspective, and the value it offers of collaborative process and vision that supports a cooperative step into the future. Citizens living in our western states are entitled to equal footing under the Constitution of the United States.
Western states have the right to re-claim their sovereignty and destiny over our own lands and futures. Western states deserve the same equal standing every state east of the Mississippi has been historically entitled to. Western states citizens are determined to insist that the federal promise finally be kept......it is long past time.
ladyboots
Lawmakers must heed locally grown solutions
We’re a strange pair of fishing buddies, the retired Republican lawmaker and the environmentalist, but we sure do enjoy each other’s company. Together, we tramp through thickets, scramble down riverbanks, wade icy currents -- all for the shared pleasure of laying a fly in front of a handsome westslope cutt.
This fall, as we bushwhacked into a secret hole, we couldn’t help but notice each other’s hats: the veteran GOP campaigner was wearing a ballcap touting Trout Unlimited; the conservationist was bearing the badge of the local lumber mill. Maybe that’s why we get on so well. We’re willing to fish a mile in another man’s hat.
We both believe, generally, that there’s room enough in Montana’s wilds for all sorts of folks. We agree that there’s room enough for compromise, that it’s better to talk than to shout, that we’d rather negotiate than litigate. And we both believe that when neighbors cooperate in good faith to help manage their own backyards, then the powers that be should pay very close attention, and think twice before tipping the scales on behalf of special interests.
Together, when we weren’t chasing trout, we spent a year working alongside a wild diversity of opinionated folk, hammering out a unanimous land-use agreement for forest lands west of Glacier National Park. We partnered with Democrats and Republicans, motorheads and wildernuts, slednecks and timber beasts. There were bikers and businessmen, backcountry guides and frontcountry realtors. Hunters, horsemen and anglers joined to express support. The Montana Logging Association was at the table, and so was the Montana Wilderness Association. Together, wary but in good faith, we set a goal of unanimous consent and a deadline of the first day of elk season. We worked darned hard over a whole year full of lasagna and venison burgers and chili feeds and conversations.
Across Montana, similar partnerships have been working to solve thorny federal land-management problems -- restoring forests, protecting wildlife, guaranteeing recreational access and improving local economies. These are difficult rooms to work in, where long-term adversaries are plodding through years of distrust toward common ground. We all want jobs and clean water, forests full of trails and big elk. And who better to help assure that than those of us who live, work and play on these world-class landscapes?
Locally built, collaboratively developed solutions -- implemented and directed by professional land stewards -- are the most enduring and beneficial of all, because they take into account local conditions and needs, while at the same time balancing national rules and regulations. When supported by lawmakers and implemented by federal land management agencies, these local partnerships provide powerful solutions.
Collaborative efforts between neighbors already have produced tremendous gains for Montana – created jobs in the woods, restored habitats, protected our landscapes, livelihoods and lifestyles -- but they cannot succeed without buy-in from decision makers. If the powers-that-be expect ordinary folk to put new ideas on the table, they must also be ready to employ those ideas on the ground. Land managers must be open to creative proposals, and lawmakers must provide agencies the flexibility to enact those plans.
There is, in fact, room enough for most all of us in Montana’s wilds. We have proven that, unanimously, in our own backyard. But without support, all this hard work may ultimately come to naught. We cannot allow the heavy thumb of special interests, or agency bias, or political gridlock, to tip the scales we have in good faith worked so hard to balance. Montana’s decision makers need to trust Montanans, and to recognize, always, the value of fishing a mile of river in another man’s hat.
Michael Jamison of Whitefish was a founding participant of the Whitefish Range Partnership. A writer and conservationist, he serves as Glacier program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.
Bob Brown of Whitefish served as Chair of the Whitefish Range Partnership. He is a former Montana secretary of state and former president of the Montana state Senate.
http://helenair.com/news/opinion/lawmakers-must-heed-locally-grown-solutions/article_20311562-f8b4-58ec-ab53-1ed9b0d163e2.html
LadyBoots Commentary;
As an advocate for the return of, and proponent of relinquishment to, federal 'claim' of western states lands:
I, and many more like minds and hearts, are committed to broadening associations and cooperative efforts that support best practices, collaborative process, multiple use, shared management, and responsible stewardship, of our public lands. Such basic self-determination should be locally decided, sponsored and supported, under the principle jurisdiction of our local and state governments, with citizen advisory involvement.
We believe in inviting all voices and stakeholders to the conversation and decision making table, and are equally committed to negotiating with honesty and in good faith with one another toward common goals and responsible stewardship.
We respect the voices of all multiple users and public interests. That places us squarely in contrast to so-called protection and preservation advocates that take positions which ignore the rights of the states, private citizens and their property, and the public right to enjoy the beauty and the resources in our states, in pursuit of a single agenda...closure through exclusive federal jurisdiction, executive action, and management policy.
Our federal coffers are empty. We have mortgaged three generations of America's future against our current national debt. The federal government 'claims' ownership of half (on average) of lands in EACH western state. Look at the inequality, in a nation sharply focused on that very issue. Intention of more future federal designations of our lands has been declared. Enough.
Existing federal lands are at risk now to lack of funding, neglected management, and a spark set to dead forests from a lightening strike flashing from inside Nature's thunderhead. (See map at the end of this article)
Consider a new perspective, and the value it offers of collaborative process and vision that supports a cooperative step into the future. Citizens living in our western states are entitled to equal footing under the Constitution of the United States.
Western states have the right to re-claim their sovereignty and destiny over our own lands and futures. Western states deserve the same equal standing every state east of the Mississippi has been historically entitled to. Western states citizens are determined to insist that the federal promise finally be kept......it is long past time.
ladyboots
The Enabling Act of 1802 was passed on April 30, 1802 by the Seventh Congress of the United States. This act authorized the residents of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territory to form the state of Ohio and join the U.S. on an equal footing with the other states. To accomplish this, and in doing so, the act also established the precedent and procedures for creation of future states in the western territories. The Enabling Act of 1802 would be the first appropriation by Congress for internal improvements in the country's interior.
Public Land:
Is a category for 'States' (the States that compacted to create our Union):
that excluded [the original 13 states plus] Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee before Ohio was admitted, and Texas after.
"An act in addition to, and in modification of, the propositions contained in the act entitled 'An act to enable the People of the Eastern division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States; and for other purposes". March 1803
Public Land:
Is a category for 'States' (the States that compacted to create our Union):
that excluded [the original 13 states plus] Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee before Ohio was admitted, and Texas after.
"An act in addition to, and in modification of, the propositions contained in the act entitled 'An act to enable the People of the Eastern division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States; and for other purposes". March 1803
Some Reasons For The Waning American Empire That Must Be Addressed
We all should know certain things the Elitists don't want us to think about. Things like; For the most part the Progressive Socialist faction effectively controls most of American Business and Politics with their chosen puppets visibly in control, but in fact taking orders from their masters. We are going through the rough patch right now because people all over America have woken up and are trying to fight the amoeba like monster that has engulfed our nation. Take a cold hard look at things and you will be able to see that basically a Cabal controls the Progressive /Socialist movement. In turn the Cabal makes sure the laws are written to allow-it-to-operate-openly, with only the barest minimum of governmental supervision and taxation. Should any others not of the anointed Elite class controlling the Cabal try to compete,with it they make it neigh unto impossible for them to do business. Oh yeah, by the way they are operating a massive welfare net to keep the masses of low information voters happy and voting for their selected Politicians.
As a result of generations of this type of hidden management they are cutting necessary services like Military readiness when they should be cutting welfare payments and have a way to move those on it into productive jobs in the private sector to increase the wealth of this country for it's productive citizens. Unfortunately there has always been an Elite Class that has felt the others on this planet and by definition in this Country were put here solely to provide for the Elites every whim. The true enemy of the people are the ones who control the Elite Class. People like Mike. Bloomberg, George Soros and his son, Bill Gates,and the list goes on..
There are many others who over the ages have insinuated themselves into every human endeavor with the express purpose of controlling humanity. In bygone times they operated openly as kings with the total power to do anything they wanted to do. At that time they were only restrained by the other 'Kings' who wanted to control everything and competed with and openly fought each other to gain that final advantage.
The American Revolution changed all that and finally broke their stranglehold on world dominance but it was only a temporary victory. the Elitist controllers went hidden and like a wolf in sheeps clothing, masqueraded as the new Democracies that would overthrow the kings and queens to usher in a new age of prosperity for the masses of people. They set up basically the same dictatorships the kings had but called them Democratic Governance or Democratic Monarchies that only helped and protected the people from harm by imposing certain necessary rules and regulations that in effect would keep the people from ever uniting again like the colonists did in America. In effect they were all Oligarchies.
Very quietly the Elites took over world finances and businesses to form the Cabals that are now trying to institute the complete world control they have always sought. We are fighting them for the survival of America right now, and half of our fellow citizens have blindly sided with the enemy because of promises of being taken care of for the rest of their lives if they only would support and vote for the hidden Masters choices for government officials they could or already did control.
The corrupted politicians in American Government know that their house of cards will not last forever and that they can't keep fooling the people with Glowing Rhetoric and Total Media Control. In fact they are doing everything they possibly can to put in place another and harsher form of control. Most of which is already here. Take the hated "Patriot Act" There is nothing Patriotic about it. It was deliberately created to strip away the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting Terrorism and Protecting the Public.
One other thing is severely damaging us, and that is the lack of Civic responsibility in the ranks of Politicians and since the Obama purge the Military has now become infected. The Politicians are more worried about continuing their political Careers/free rides on our dime instead of addressing the problems. Combine this with ignoring or even hiding the truth, elected officials and irresponsible Bureaucrats don't seem to be held to account for their lack of initiative. this bleeds through into the military where the top cadres must ply the politicking or be replaced. In turn it flows down to the civil authorities who have become increasingly militarized and are susceptible to the corruption that politicking inevitably brings.
The current crop of political rulers of the American Empire. Well, what else am I going to call it when the President acts like an Emperor instead of an elected Official who is supposed to defend the precepts of the Constitution and uphold all the laws? With the inherent power in the Presidency there needs to be a balance of responsibility and power. That balance is sorely lacking in our current CinC. It is also becoming endemic in the ranks of Congress as well. To the American observer it seems that almost but not quite the entire group of politicians have no loyalty to anything but themselves and what is required of them by their Party Masters and those hidden overlords who control their masters.
The question is what are we to do about this mess we're in? The last election was a definitive mandate by the Voters that they wanted a truly conservative set of representatives in charge and listening to them. What we have at present is the Speaker of the House ready willing and able to throw in the towel to appease the very people we want out of power. The incoming Senate Majority Leader is showing the same signs. It makes one wonder why this is happening?
We have a long hard haul ahead of us and there is no guarantee we will win in the end. So far we have been out maneuvered, out planned,and out organized by the highly controlled Left. This must end right now! In actuality the Second American Revolution has begun. We must attempt to keep it a peaceful Revolution or we will be over run by the Governmental Machine. So far it holds all the cards. We must systematically take those cards from them, and return them to their rightful owners, Us..
We have been beating around the bush for way too long. We are fragmented and frozen by the lack of cohesion and direction in our attempts to correct the mess we have been put in because most of us have been asleep for so long. Make no mistake, the opposition has been drugging us with platitudes for generations to put us in the state we were in.Now we have to stay awake not taking any more false rhetoric by the politicians as the truth. We must organize ourselves into manageable groups that are focused on the same goals, and carry them out with precision.
The most dangerous sign that we have lost it is the fact that Congress has had a 'Sudden' reluctance to tolerate differing points of view, and has since the 111th Congress trashed America. this reluctance is spreading among the population also and is discouraging discussions of the fundamental basics of our American Culture. This severely limits the arena of Political Science and cripples Freedom of Speech, which in turn cripples Freedom of Thought. We may never get back what we have had stripped from us by the curmudgeons in Congress that have repeatedly refused to listen to us on how we want the Country run. We must try to get back as much as we can, and then punish those responsible for the theft of our Constitutional Freedoms. It's either we unite against the Elites and their Cabals, or, we become their slaves once again!
What has been lost to the Elitists who believe that everyone else is put on this world solely to service them and cater to their wishes, can be gotten back again. The trick is for all of us to unite against the Dark Elitist forces. That's all it would take, for us to unite and stay the course. It would mean that we would have to subsume all personal and group goals to work on the agreed on agenda we wanted to bring about. It could even be a dual agenda to bring about two things like blocking illegal amnesty and ending income tax. Or it could be pushing for an Article V amendment convention started by the states petition to Congress to call one then step back.
Should that be done there would have to be certain safeguards put in place by the States on how it would be run, how the Delegates would be chosen, what the delegates could propose and agree to, etc. A good model for the States to follow is the Indiana laws that were enacted and placed on the books. Doing this would prevent someone like Soros from hijacking the convention to illegally and unconstitutionally shred the Constitution. It would also limit what could be done by the delegates themselves. The Delegates to a Convention of States would have to agree on the wording of any new amendment before it would be sent to the States for the Ratification process.
Under this type of legislation, the Delegates could be ordered to only allow the shortest and clearest Amendment wording. Example: The 16th Amendment on Income tax is hereby Repealed. Or The 17th Amendment is hereby Repealed and Senators will be henceforth be elected as is provided for in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution before the 17th was ratified. Or, The 14th Amendment is hereby Repealed and replaced by the 'Original' 13th Amendment. See, Simple and straight to the point. One I would like to see is The Second Amendment is hereby interpreted to mean the Government shall in no way restrict free ownership, use,transportation, and/or carry rights of any and all firearms, by Legal American Citizens, and all prior laws enacted in conflict with this Amendment are themselves repealed as Unconstitutional and Unenforceable.
The basic premise of the short and to the point wording of amendments is to remove as much as possible and Legalese that will give the Government or it's Justice Department loop holes they can use to get around this type of Amendment. An even more needed Amendment would be one that simply States: The Supreme Court is hereby relegated to commenting on whether a law is Constitutional or not. They must explain if all or what parts are not Constitutional then return the law to Congress without any suggestions or opinions on how to rectify it. They are also charged with reviewing the decisions of lower courts rulings on points of Constitutional Law without suggesting any remedies.
This would prevent the Supreme Court from Legislating from the bench as they are now doing. Once it's in the Constitution, the Court could scream all they wanted to but they would again be under the checks and balances the Forefathers put in place to preserve the Republic.
See the enacted bills concerning the Indiana state Legislature at;
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...
and
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...
If we don't do something soon we will be left with a shell of a Constitution with no teeth. It will be similar in effect as the Russian or Chinese Constitutions were in protecting the People from a Voracious Nihilistic Government. In fact America will continue to emulate Imperial Rome until it burns too!
The Tradesman
As a result of generations of this type of hidden management they are cutting necessary services like Military readiness when they should be cutting welfare payments and have a way to move those on it into productive jobs in the private sector to increase the wealth of this country for it's productive citizens. Unfortunately there has always been an Elite Class that has felt the others on this planet and by definition in this Country were put here solely to provide for the Elites every whim. The true enemy of the people are the ones who control the Elite Class. People like Mike. Bloomberg, George Soros and his son, Bill Gates,and the list goes on..
There are many others who over the ages have insinuated themselves into every human endeavor with the express purpose of controlling humanity. In bygone times they operated openly as kings with the total power to do anything they wanted to do. At that time they were only restrained by the other 'Kings' who wanted to control everything and competed with and openly fought each other to gain that final advantage.
The American Revolution changed all that and finally broke their stranglehold on world dominance but it was only a temporary victory. the Elitist controllers went hidden and like a wolf in sheeps clothing, masqueraded as the new Democracies that would overthrow the kings and queens to usher in a new age of prosperity for the masses of people. They set up basically the same dictatorships the kings had but called them Democratic Governance or Democratic Monarchies that only helped and protected the people from harm by imposing certain necessary rules and regulations that in effect would keep the people from ever uniting again like the colonists did in America. In effect they were all Oligarchies.
Very quietly the Elites took over world finances and businesses to form the Cabals that are now trying to institute the complete world control they have always sought. We are fighting them for the survival of America right now, and half of our fellow citizens have blindly sided with the enemy because of promises of being taken care of for the rest of their lives if they only would support and vote for the hidden Masters choices for government officials they could or already did control.
The corrupted politicians in American Government know that their house of cards will not last forever and that they can't keep fooling the people with Glowing Rhetoric and Total Media Control. In fact they are doing everything they possibly can to put in place another and harsher form of control. Most of which is already here. Take the hated "Patriot Act" There is nothing Patriotic about it. It was deliberately created to strip away the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting Terrorism and Protecting the Public.
One other thing is severely damaging us, and that is the lack of Civic responsibility in the ranks of Politicians and since the Obama purge the Military has now become infected. The Politicians are more worried about continuing their political Careers/free rides on our dime instead of addressing the problems. Combine this with ignoring or even hiding the truth, elected officials and irresponsible Bureaucrats don't seem to be held to account for their lack of initiative. this bleeds through into the military where the top cadres must ply the politicking or be replaced. In turn it flows down to the civil authorities who have become increasingly militarized and are susceptible to the corruption that politicking inevitably brings.
The current crop of political rulers of the American Empire. Well, what else am I going to call it when the President acts like an Emperor instead of an elected Official who is supposed to defend the precepts of the Constitution and uphold all the laws? With the inherent power in the Presidency there needs to be a balance of responsibility and power. That balance is sorely lacking in our current CinC. It is also becoming endemic in the ranks of Congress as well. To the American observer it seems that almost but not quite the entire group of politicians have no loyalty to anything but themselves and what is required of them by their Party Masters and those hidden overlords who control their masters.
The question is what are we to do about this mess we're in? The last election was a definitive mandate by the Voters that they wanted a truly conservative set of representatives in charge and listening to them. What we have at present is the Speaker of the House ready willing and able to throw in the towel to appease the very people we want out of power. The incoming Senate Majority Leader is showing the same signs. It makes one wonder why this is happening?
We have a long hard haul ahead of us and there is no guarantee we will win in the end. So far we have been out maneuvered, out planned,and out organized by the highly controlled Left. This must end right now! In actuality the Second American Revolution has begun. We must attempt to keep it a peaceful Revolution or we will be over run by the Governmental Machine. So far it holds all the cards. We must systematically take those cards from them, and return them to their rightful owners, Us..
We have been beating around the bush for way too long. We are fragmented and frozen by the lack of cohesion and direction in our attempts to correct the mess we have been put in because most of us have been asleep for so long. Make no mistake, the opposition has been drugging us with platitudes for generations to put us in the state we were in.Now we have to stay awake not taking any more false rhetoric by the politicians as the truth. We must organize ourselves into manageable groups that are focused on the same goals, and carry them out with precision.
The most dangerous sign that we have lost it is the fact that Congress has had a 'Sudden' reluctance to tolerate differing points of view, and has since the 111th Congress trashed America. this reluctance is spreading among the population also and is discouraging discussions of the fundamental basics of our American Culture. This severely limits the arena of Political Science and cripples Freedom of Speech, which in turn cripples Freedom of Thought. We may never get back what we have had stripped from us by the curmudgeons in Congress that have repeatedly refused to listen to us on how we want the Country run. We must try to get back as much as we can, and then punish those responsible for the theft of our Constitutional Freedoms. It's either we unite against the Elites and their Cabals, or, we become their slaves once again!
What has been lost to the Elitists who believe that everyone else is put on this world solely to service them and cater to their wishes, can be gotten back again. The trick is for all of us to unite against the Dark Elitist forces. That's all it would take, for us to unite and stay the course. It would mean that we would have to subsume all personal and group goals to work on the agreed on agenda we wanted to bring about. It could even be a dual agenda to bring about two things like blocking illegal amnesty and ending income tax. Or it could be pushing for an Article V amendment convention started by the states petition to Congress to call one then step back.
Should that be done there would have to be certain safeguards put in place by the States on how it would be run, how the Delegates would be chosen, what the delegates could propose and agree to, etc. A good model for the States to follow is the Indiana laws that were enacted and placed on the books. Doing this would prevent someone like Soros from hijacking the convention to illegally and unconstitutionally shred the Constitution. It would also limit what could be done by the delegates themselves. The Delegates to a Convention of States would have to agree on the wording of any new amendment before it would be sent to the States for the Ratification process.
Under this type of legislation, the Delegates could be ordered to only allow the shortest and clearest Amendment wording. Example: The 16th Amendment on Income tax is hereby Repealed. Or The 17th Amendment is hereby Repealed and Senators will be henceforth be elected as is provided for in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution before the 17th was ratified. Or, The 14th Amendment is hereby Repealed and replaced by the 'Original' 13th Amendment. See, Simple and straight to the point. One I would like to see is The Second Amendment is hereby interpreted to mean the Government shall in no way restrict free ownership, use,transportation, and/or carry rights of any and all firearms, by Legal American Citizens, and all prior laws enacted in conflict with this Amendment are themselves repealed as Unconstitutional and Unenforceable.
The basic premise of the short and to the point wording of amendments is to remove as much as possible and Legalese that will give the Government or it's Justice Department loop holes they can use to get around this type of Amendment. An even more needed Amendment would be one that simply States: The Supreme Court is hereby relegated to commenting on whether a law is Constitutional or not. They must explain if all or what parts are not Constitutional then return the law to Congress without any suggestions or opinions on how to rectify it. They are also charged with reviewing the decisions of lower courts rulings on points of Constitutional Law without suggesting any remedies.
This would prevent the Supreme Court from Legislating from the bench as they are now doing. Once it's in the Constitution, the Court could scream all they wanted to but they would again be under the checks and balances the Forefathers put in place to preserve the Republic.
See the enacted bills concerning the Indiana state Legislature at;
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...
and
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...
If we don't do something soon we will be left with a shell of a Constitution with no teeth. It will be similar in effect as the Russian or Chinese Constitutions were in protecting the People from a Voracious Nihilistic Government. In fact America will continue to emulate Imperial Rome until it burns too!
The Tradesman
Let's hear it for a Quebec mayor...!
MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN- MENU... EXPLAINS WHY
Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.
The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...
“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate.
“They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.
“They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.
“They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic; they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).
“That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.
“And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.
“Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.
The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.
“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.
“If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.
“Ask yourself the question, just once, ‘Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?’
“A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”
Ed. Note: It's too bad Congress does not have the resolve to declare the same set of guidelines to Muslims in America.
Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.
The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...
“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate.
“They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.
“They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.
“They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic; they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).
“That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.
“And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.
“Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.
The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.
“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.
“If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.
“Ask yourself the question, just once, ‘Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?’
“A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”
Ed. Note: It's too bad Congress does not have the resolve to declare the same set of guidelines to Muslims in America.
TAKE ACTION TO SAVE OUR REPUBLIC FROM A DICTATORSHIP.
OK FOLKS IT IS TIME TO USE THE STATES 31 REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS AND 26 STATE LEGISLATURES TO FORCE WASHINGTON TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION. THE MUST BE FORCED TO SUE OBAMA AND CONGRESS TO ACT TO STOP THIS USURPATION AND MOVE TO A "PURE DEMOCRACY DICTATORSHIP".
So far I have heard of two Sheriffs that said they would not act on Obama's unlawful orders. We all need to send this picture to all governors, legislators and members of congress.
Email this to all your contacts families and friends we the people if all do this can change the minds of all Politicians and Judges.
Where We Need To Go From Here.
Now that the hoopla is over and everyone in the Republican camp is congratulating themselves on the 'win', what needs to be done?
The opening shot in the new American Revolution to overthrow the Progressive Socialist tyranny they have wrought on America since the end of the civil war has just been fired with the 2014 Mid-Term Elections. It is almost axiomatic that the presidents party will suffer loses in mid terms, especially in the mid-terms of his second Administration. Will as in the past, the recently awakened giant go back to sleep thinking that everything has been won forever and allow business as usual to prevail? Will the giant stay awake and take responsibility for the form government takes by actively overseeing his elected 'Hired Hands' to make sure they do his bidding while staying within the confines of Constitutional law?
Heeding the wishes of We The People while staying within Constitutional Law, is the real issue facing the Nation right now. It has been brought to the forefront by the excesses of a Narcissistic Individual with Delusions of Grandeur who somehow bluffed his way into the most powerful political position in the world. At least it used to be that way before he severely damaged and degraded it. I actually wonder who all of his Puppet Masters are. They all need to be fully exposed to the American Public to prevent this from happening again.
The Republican Party only won this mid term based on the disgust the public had for the Agendas foisted on us by two terms of the Administration backed by the Progressive Democratic Socialist Incumbents, and Republican RINO Socialist Incumbents in Congress.We have tried to make inroads into their power structure with the intention of dismantling it over the next three or four election cycles. the question remains; Will the fickle Hedonistic self centered public remain committed to standing up for their Freedom and Liberty?
The first thing the Republican Party needs to do is to create a dialogue with the public warning them of revenge betrayal in the Lame Duck session of Congress by those who have lost this cycle. Make no mistake, it is coming down the pike.What we can do to ward it off will have to be determined by how much more damage the Democratic Socialist Puppets and their Hidden Puppet Masters are willing to assume on themselves with the potential to destroy their century long Agenda to make America just another casualty to Socialism..
The Republican Establishment needs to come into the realities of the 21 Century and start addressing the Issues of concern to the MAJORITY of the People. NO MORE Political Correctness and the elevation of small minorities rights over Majority rights. For those of you who don't understand, that means a return to EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL, Mutual Respect for differing ideas but not to the point of legislating to make them a protected superior ideology.The Constitution and the intent of the Declaration of Independence must be the guiding factors in all further legislation. Congress must Submit to the strictures of the Constitution and obey it's Enumerated Powers.
The people must demand that every Amendment that debased those enumerated powers, and gave supremacy to a central government over the Rights of Sovereign States in this Union of Sovereign States, must be repealed forthwith. the Stolen/Usurped powers then returned to the States and the People. Take a close look at the original language and intent of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. See what they originally were enacted to accomplish, and what they have been mis-used to steal from the States and the People. Repealing those three would take Absolutely nothing from the People nor from the States, but it would take away most of the Usurped/Stolen powers from the Federal Government and relegate it to it's legitimate position in the scheme of things in America as the Constitution and the Founders intended..
The only new Amendment I would recommend, is a Balanced Budget Amendment that required Congress to remain within the confines of the collected taxes with the penalty for not doing so being forfeiture of their Congressional seats and a restriction from ever running for Federal office again.The Founders have the people just such a tool to be used sparingly but available for just such conditions as we now have. It's the Article V Amendment. We need to force its use ASAP to get the Country back to the Freedom loving Country that protects all our God Given Liberties with Constitutional Law rule instead of rule by men.
As I started out to say,We have just fired the opening shot. there is much to do, and so little time to do it. Over the next two years,We The People, must form groups at the grass roots level in every single Precinct in the entire Nation for House Representatives, and a coalition to vett candidates for the Senate on a State by State basis..
Those LOCAL and State groups need to do several things;
1. They need to vett candidates for inclusion on both parties Primary ballots. Yes Both Parties.We need to start thinking of ourselves as Americans First and Foremost and work together in a Bi-Partisan force to insure the best things will be done for the Country and it's people while shutting out the Crony Capitalism/Stateism we have been so thoroughly infected with over the last 150 years.
2. We need to work together as a Bi-Partisan Force to get the necessary petitions and other paperwork completed and certified ASAP to insure our picks for Candidates are on the Primary tickets in spite of who the Party Establishment Leadership want to run for office.
3. We need to DOMINATE THE PRIMARIES, and get out the votes for our candidates in numbers large enough that they will be the ones running in the general elections. If we have chosen wisely and with what's best for America in general, the people will win and the usurpers will be relegated to the dust bin of History.
4. These processes must also be used for State Elections, so you see why we must start right now, and hope we can get it completed in time for the 2016 Primaries. there is so much work to do and so little time to accomplish what we must to Restore America to what it was intended to be before the special interests and NWO proponents got in the way and stole our power by stealth tactics.
The opening shot in the new American Revolution to overthrow the Progressive Socialist tyranny they have wrought on America since the end of the civil war has just been fired with the 2014 Mid-Term Elections. It is almost axiomatic that the presidents party will suffer loses in mid terms, especially in the mid-terms of his second Administration. Will as in the past, the recently awakened giant go back to sleep thinking that everything has been won forever and allow business as usual to prevail? Will the giant stay awake and take responsibility for the form government takes by actively overseeing his elected 'Hired Hands' to make sure they do his bidding while staying within the confines of Constitutional law?
Heeding the wishes of We The People while staying within Constitutional Law, is the real issue facing the Nation right now. It has been brought to the forefront by the excesses of a Narcissistic Individual with Delusions of Grandeur who somehow bluffed his way into the most powerful political position in the world. At least it used to be that way before he severely damaged and degraded it. I actually wonder who all of his Puppet Masters are. They all need to be fully exposed to the American Public to prevent this from happening again.
The Republican Party only won this mid term based on the disgust the public had for the Agendas foisted on us by two terms of the Administration backed by the Progressive Democratic Socialist Incumbents, and Republican RINO Socialist Incumbents in Congress.We have tried to make inroads into their power structure with the intention of dismantling it over the next three or four election cycles. the question remains; Will the fickle Hedonistic self centered public remain committed to standing up for their Freedom and Liberty?
The first thing the Republican Party needs to do is to create a dialogue with the public warning them of revenge betrayal in the Lame Duck session of Congress by those who have lost this cycle. Make no mistake, it is coming down the pike.What we can do to ward it off will have to be determined by how much more damage the Democratic Socialist Puppets and their Hidden Puppet Masters are willing to assume on themselves with the potential to destroy their century long Agenda to make America just another casualty to Socialism..
The Republican Establishment needs to come into the realities of the 21 Century and start addressing the Issues of concern to the MAJORITY of the People. NO MORE Political Correctness and the elevation of small minorities rights over Majority rights. For those of you who don't understand, that means a return to EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL, Mutual Respect for differing ideas but not to the point of legislating to make them a protected superior ideology.The Constitution and the intent of the Declaration of Independence must be the guiding factors in all further legislation. Congress must Submit to the strictures of the Constitution and obey it's Enumerated Powers.
The people must demand that every Amendment that debased those enumerated powers, and gave supremacy to a central government over the Rights of Sovereign States in this Union of Sovereign States, must be repealed forthwith. the Stolen/Usurped powers then returned to the States and the People. Take a close look at the original language and intent of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. See what they originally were enacted to accomplish, and what they have been mis-used to steal from the States and the People. Repealing those three would take Absolutely nothing from the People nor from the States, but it would take away most of the Usurped/Stolen powers from the Federal Government and relegate it to it's legitimate position in the scheme of things in America as the Constitution and the Founders intended..
The only new Amendment I would recommend, is a Balanced Budget Amendment that required Congress to remain within the confines of the collected taxes with the penalty for not doing so being forfeiture of their Congressional seats and a restriction from ever running for Federal office again.The Founders have the people just such a tool to be used sparingly but available for just such conditions as we now have. It's the Article V Amendment. We need to force its use ASAP to get the Country back to the Freedom loving Country that protects all our God Given Liberties with Constitutional Law rule instead of rule by men.
As I started out to say,We have just fired the opening shot. there is much to do, and so little time to do it. Over the next two years,We The People, must form groups at the grass roots level in every single Precinct in the entire Nation for House Representatives, and a coalition to vett candidates for the Senate on a State by State basis..
Those LOCAL and State groups need to do several things;
1. They need to vett candidates for inclusion on both parties Primary ballots. Yes Both Parties.We need to start thinking of ourselves as Americans First and Foremost and work together in a Bi-Partisan force to insure the best things will be done for the Country and it's people while shutting out the Crony Capitalism/Stateism we have been so thoroughly infected with over the last 150 years.
2. We need to work together as a Bi-Partisan Force to get the necessary petitions and other paperwork completed and certified ASAP to insure our picks for Candidates are on the Primary tickets in spite of who the Party Establishment Leadership want to run for office.
3. We need to DOMINATE THE PRIMARIES, and get out the votes for our candidates in numbers large enough that they will be the ones running in the general elections. If we have chosen wisely and with what's best for America in general, the people will win and the usurpers will be relegated to the dust bin of History.
4. These processes must also be used for State Elections, so you see why we must start right now, and hope we can get it completed in time for the 2016 Primaries. there is so much work to do and so little time to accomplish what we must to Restore America to what it was intended to be before the special interests and NWO proponents got in the way and stole our power by stealth tactics.
I did not know the pledge was changed this many times!!
As many of you are aware, it was the Knights of Columbus who submitted to congress that the words "Under God" should be added to our pledge of allegiance. Both Houses of Congress passed the law and it was signed by President Eisenhower in 1954. The information below was based on a poll taken by NBC on what percentage think we should keep the words in our pledge verses the percent who want it removed.
If you read this and agree that "under God" should be left in the pledge, then just forward it to others and you have voted for it to be left in. If you delete it and don't forward it you are voting NO to "under God." Easy huh!
Official versions
(changes in bold red
italics)
1892
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the
republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and
justice for all."
1892 to 1923
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and
to the republic for
which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all."
1923 to 1924
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States and to the republic for which it stands: one
nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all."
1924 to 1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty
and justice for all."
1954 to
Present
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America , and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all."
Shock to NBC
This is not sent for discussion. If you agree, forward it... If you don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way or the other. By my forwarding it, you know how I feel.
Do you believe that the word "God" should stay in American
culture?
NBC this morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest Number of
responses that they have ever had for one of their polls,
and the Percentage was the same as this:
86% to keep the
words, "IN God We Trust" and
"God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, 14% against.
That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't.
Now it is your turn. It is said that 86% of Americans believe the word "God" should stay. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why are we catering to this 14%?
AMEN!
If you read this and agree that "under God" should be left in the pledge, then just forward it to others and you have voted for it to be left in. If you delete it and don't forward it you are voting NO to "under God." Easy huh!
Official versions
(changes in bold red
italics)
1892
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the
republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and
justice for all."
1892 to 1923
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and
to the republic for
which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all."
1923 to 1924
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States and to the republic for which it stands: one
nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all."
1924 to 1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America, and
to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty
and justice for all."
1954 to
Present
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America , and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all."
Shock to NBC
This is not sent for discussion. If you agree, forward it... If you don't, delete it. I don't want to know one way or the other. By my forwarding it, you know how I feel.
Do you believe that the word "God" should stay in American
culture?
NBC this morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest Number of
responses that they have ever had for one of their polls,
and the Percentage was the same as this:
86% to keep the
words, "IN God We Trust" and
"God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, 14% against.
That is a pretty 'commanding' public response.
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't.
Now it is your turn. It is said that 86% of Americans believe the word "God" should stay. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why are we catering to this 14%?
AMEN!
The small number of State Legislators that need to be convinced to pass and Ratify the Proposed 28th Amendment
The article V method to correct only requires less than 4,000 to be convinced that the correction is needed and would restore liberty and States rights and powers? So, as we see the numbers are quite small and there are millions of VOTERS that are knowledgeable of the powers of the Article V process.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/number-of-leg...
Senate House Total
State NumberTerm* NumberTerm Number
Alabama 35 - 4 105 - 4 140
Alaska 20 - 4 40 - 2 60
Arizona 30 - 2 60 - 2 90
Arkansas 35 - 4 100 - 2 135
California 40 - 4 80 - 2 120
Colorado 35 - 4 65 - 2 100
Connecticut 36 - 2 151 - 2 187
Delaware 21 - 4 41 - 2 62
Florida 40 - 4 120 - 2 160
Georgia 56 - 2 180 - 2 236
Hawaii 25 - 4 51 - 2 76
Idaho 35 - 2 70 - 2 105
Illinois 59 - 4 118 - 2 177
Indiana 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Iowa 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Kansas 40 - 4 125 - 2 165
Kentucky 38 - 4 100 - 2 138
Louisiana 39 - 4 105 - 4 144
Maine 35 - 2 151 - 2 186
Maryland 47 - 4 141 - 4 188
Massachusetts 40 - 2 160 - 2 200
Michigan 38 - 4 110 - 2 148
Minnesota 67 - 4 134 - 2 201
Mississippi 52 - 4 122 - 4 174
Missouri 34 - 4 163 - 2 197
Montana 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Nebraska 49 - 4 NA - NA 49
Nevada 21 - 4 42 - 2 63
New Hampshire 24 - 2 400 - 2 424
New Jersey 40 - 4 80 - 2 120
New Mexico 42 - 4 70 - 2 112
New York 63 - 2 150 - 2 213
North Carolina 50 - 2 120 - 2 170
North Dakota 47 - 4 94 -4 141
Ohio 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Oklahoma 48 - 4 101 - 2 149
Oregon 30 - 4 60 - 2 90
Pennsylvania 50 - 4 203 - 2 253
Rhode Island 38 - 2 75 - 2 113
South Carolina 46 - 4 124 - 2 170
SouthDakota 35 - 2 70 - 2 105
Tennessee 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Texas 31 - 4 150 - 2 181
Utah 29 - 4 75 - 2 104
Vermont 30 - 2 150 - 2 180
Virginia 40 - 4 100 - 2 140
Washington 49 - 4 98 - 2 147
West Virginia 34 - 4 100 - 2 134
Wisconsin 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Wyoming 30 - 4 60 - 2 90
Total 1972 5411 7383
* Note: In order for all terms to be completed within the 10-year apportionment cycle, a combination of two 4-year terms and one 2-year term may be used.
Now you can see if we only need 3/4 of the State Legislators to vote to approve then we only need 50% + 1 vote in 38 Senate and Houses to pass and Ratify the proposed 28th amendment. So, no it does not take the 300+ million. If you could chose the States with the least populations then it could be very few required to effect the corrections.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/number-of-leg...
Senate House Total
State NumberTerm* NumberTerm Number
Alabama 35 - 4 105 - 4 140
Alaska 20 - 4 40 - 2 60
Arizona 30 - 2 60 - 2 90
Arkansas 35 - 4 100 - 2 135
California 40 - 4 80 - 2 120
Colorado 35 - 4 65 - 2 100
Connecticut 36 - 2 151 - 2 187
Delaware 21 - 4 41 - 2 62
Florida 40 - 4 120 - 2 160
Georgia 56 - 2 180 - 2 236
Hawaii 25 - 4 51 - 2 76
Idaho 35 - 2 70 - 2 105
Illinois 59 - 4 118 - 2 177
Indiana 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Iowa 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Kansas 40 - 4 125 - 2 165
Kentucky 38 - 4 100 - 2 138
Louisiana 39 - 4 105 - 4 144
Maine 35 - 2 151 - 2 186
Maryland 47 - 4 141 - 4 188
Massachusetts 40 - 2 160 - 2 200
Michigan 38 - 4 110 - 2 148
Minnesota 67 - 4 134 - 2 201
Mississippi 52 - 4 122 - 4 174
Missouri 34 - 4 163 - 2 197
Montana 50 - 4 100 - 2 150
Nebraska 49 - 4 NA - NA 49
Nevada 21 - 4 42 - 2 63
New Hampshire 24 - 2 400 - 2 424
New Jersey 40 - 4 80 - 2 120
New Mexico 42 - 4 70 - 2 112
New York 63 - 2 150 - 2 213
North Carolina 50 - 2 120 - 2 170
North Dakota 47 - 4 94 -4 141
Ohio 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Oklahoma 48 - 4 101 - 2 149
Oregon 30 - 4 60 - 2 90
Pennsylvania 50 - 4 203 - 2 253
Rhode Island 38 - 2 75 - 2 113
South Carolina 46 - 4 124 - 2 170
SouthDakota 35 - 2 70 - 2 105
Tennessee 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Texas 31 - 4 150 - 2 181
Utah 29 - 4 75 - 2 104
Vermont 30 - 2 150 - 2 180
Virginia 40 - 4 100 - 2 140
Washington 49 - 4 98 - 2 147
West Virginia 34 - 4 100 - 2 134
Wisconsin 33 - 4 99 - 2 132
Wyoming 30 - 4 60 - 2 90
Total 1972 5411 7383
* Note: In order for all terms to be completed within the 10-year apportionment cycle, a combination of two 4-year terms and one 2-year term may be used.
Now you can see if we only need 3/4 of the State Legislators to vote to approve then we only need 50% + 1 vote in 38 Senate and Houses to pass and Ratify the proposed 28th amendment. So, no it does not take the 300+ million. If you could chose the States with the least populations then it could be very few required to effect the corrections.
A message for all vets
I hope anyone who has a military background, or is an American, will read and forward this.
If you are not a veteran, send this to those that you know who are, or to those who may know veterans.
*******************************************
(The 2014 United States elections will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. During this midterm election year, all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested in this election. Get out and VOTE!!)
A movement has been started by our armed forces to get out the vote in 2014. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us. The President has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by the Afghanis they are training, either.
Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UN's International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UN's ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal.
The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Republicans, can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists.
Thank You.
Interestingly enough, when GW Bush was President you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. --- Because of the Obama Rules of Engagement, more than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in August alone. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for good in Afghanistan.
The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.
It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war. Obama has had 5+ years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform. But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president.
Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond.
The one million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.
Veterans: Please forward to your lists. High Priority!
In God We Trust.
Ever Wonder Why The Obama Administration Doesn't Trust Or Respect The Veterans?
If you are not a veteran, send this to those that you know who are, or to those who may know veterans.
*******************************************
(The 2014 United States elections will be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. During this midterm election year, all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested in this election. Get out and VOTE!!)
A movement has been started by our armed forces to get out the vote in 2014. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us. The President has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by the Afghanis they are training, either.
Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UN's International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UN's ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal.
The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Republicans, can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists.
Thank You.
Interestingly enough, when GW Bush was President you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. --- Because of the Obama Rules of Engagement, more than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in August alone. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for good in Afghanistan.
The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.
It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war. Obama has had 5+ years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform. But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president.
Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond.
The one million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.
Veterans: Please forward to your lists. High Priority!
In God We Trust.
Ever Wonder Why The Obama Administration Doesn't Trust Or Respect The Veterans?
Another One Bites the Dust .... 10/21/14... Obamas Jihad against the Military
When an Administration is conducting jihad against its own electorate, nothing should surprise us. Col. Dooley isn’t the only one getting the bums’ rush.
We’ve allowed a spiritual vacuum to be created by tolerating political correctness and “progressivism” way too long. So we get demons far worse than the ones that were ejected or kept from coming in in the first place.
We’ve allowed a spiritual vacuum to be created by tolerating political correctness and “progressivism” way too long. So we get demons far worse than the ones that were ejected or kept from coming in in the first place.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/dooley.asp
t. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and highly decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University. He had 19 years of service and experience, and was considered one of the most highly qualified military instructors on Radical Islam & Terrorism. He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the Mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down firsthand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the Joint Forces Staff College.
The course, "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism",which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him. They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.
"He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged." Richard Thompson, of the Thomas More Law Center said. "All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive, or just too informative."
Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col. Dooley)..."The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss military brass that does not conform to its agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley. Col. Dooley has now been added to the 9 generals the Obama administration has summarily dismissed for no other reason than they are great American military citizens."
IT'S A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSENOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!
Share this if you would. Let's bring some attention to this.
Editors Note: This is just another in a long line of removals by Obama that is decimating Experienced Line Officers of the US Military. So far almost 200 Command Officers, Loyal to their Oaths to protect and Defend the Constitution from all enemies both Foreign and Domestic, have been removed by Obama's orders/administration/agendas, and replaced by officers who Obama considers are loyal to him and better suited to hold Key Positions. You can draw your own conclusions about the why's and wherefores of those Removals.
The course, "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism",which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him. They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.
"He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged." Richard Thompson, of the Thomas More Law Center said. "All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive, or just too informative."
Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col. Dooley)..."The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss military brass that does not conform to its agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley. Col. Dooley has now been added to the 9 generals the Obama administration has summarily dismissed for no other reason than they are great American military citizens."
IT'S A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSENOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!
Share this if you would. Let's bring some attention to this.
Editors Note: This is just another in a long line of removals by Obama that is decimating Experienced Line Officers of the US Military. So far almost 200 Command Officers, Loyal to their Oaths to protect and Defend the Constitution from all enemies both Foreign and Domestic, have been removed by Obama's orders/administration/agendas, and replaced by officers who Obama considers are loyal to him and better suited to hold Key Positions. You can draw your own conclusions about the why's and wherefores of those Removals.
Aromatherapy
A scent that can ease anxiety, promote a sensation of security, calmness and control, in any uncomfortable situation.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
Support the Second Amendment to the Constitution to insure we have the means to fight back if we are forced to defend ourselves, even if it's from a corrupt and Dictatorial Government bent on taking away our Unalienable Rights!
We The People Must Out Of Necessity Unite Into A Single Minded Force to Rescue The Republic!
I know that most people have given up on our two major parties, and I don't blame them. There is a growing sentiment that the people will never again regain their stolen power over the government. Most want change so bad that they will continue to fight each other like both the major parties want them to do so they can be controlled and do not unite again like they did in 2010. these factions who for whatever reason refuse to vote one way or the other will be the ruination of the American System of Government if they don't stop fighting against themselves like third graders on a playground. the Power Elite are hoping we will continue on like this so they can cement their power over us even more than now.
Look at the crazy "Political correct Laws and Regulations we have been saddled with to supplant the tried and true common sense methods that stood the test of time. For Fifty years there has been a chipping away of our Moral Foundations. The evil ones have decreed that we will be caught between the permissiveness they project on the screen and the now draconian laws they impose on us. In example, I read of a law where Sexting by teens will be met with a jail term regardless of age instead of a good ass whipping to straighten them out. should the ass whipping be given, the parent or teacher would be charged with Assault on a minor and face prosecution. The foul elites that are creating this mess know there is no way we can oppose them if they set all the rules, and they have been doing it for at least fifty years so far. I'm not an advocate of beating your child, but I am an advocate of a proper spanking with a set of moral rules they have to live by until they reach adulthood and can make their own decisions. The Elites abhor that happening because it would expose them for the sick perverted semi-human immoral entities they are.
Here is a simple alternative to the squabbling. We vote against the Incumbent Democratic Socialists Knowing that who we vote for will only be a stopgap to give us a two year window to finally get our picks for candidates forced on to both Parties (Rs and Ds) We know if we vote for a third party, it insures the Incumbent Democratic Socialists and NWO supporters will again win their seats in Congress.
Knowing that and knowing the only party that can win Nationally (Federal Elections) at this juncture is the Republicans, our hands are sort of tied. State elections are iffy, and local elections are actually open and up for grabs.
If we ever actually want the situation outlined above to change, it will take year round work with our boots on the ground in every precinct, to accomplish that goal. It also means that we have dropped the ball consistently since 2009. We must face up to that fact.
We are not united with a single purpose like we were then. Our purpose uniting us then was to stop ACA/Obamacare. See how well that worked out for us after we lost the focus and started to let the various groups start calling the shots for us? I must say it; WE HAVE BECOME LAZY AND COMPLACENT LIKE WE WERE BEFORE 2009 ONCE AGAIN! Even in my own local area I have seen three times where the Democratic supporters have gone door to door stumping for their candidates, and I have yet to see anyone from the Republican/Conservative camp get off their butts and do the same. This is why we stand to lose to the opposition.
We must become united on a single purpose once again, and this time stick to it until we have taken back the control of our government. I suggest we think of that that Purpose and the Focus that goes with it as, The RESTORATION of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC. If we actually want to save the American Republic we will have to do, much more than sit at keyboards and try to inspire others to do the ground work. We will need the two year window leading into the 2016 elections to even begin to start accomplishing that goal!
Here's my idea; The day after the November elections we petition the leaders of the TPP and other "Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian/ETC., to coordinate their actions toward the coming 2016 Primary elections with a specific idea in mind. We are after all supposed to be a grass roots confederation dedicated to stopping further excesses of the massive central government our Federal government has become are we not?
If the various groups will not for whatever excuse or reason, refuse to act to coordinate our efforts at our request, we must stop supporting the ones who will not and start supporting the ones that do. Here is a simple and straightforward way for them to do that;
1. Set up the structure for and help facilitate the formation of precinct level groups, assisting them by coordinating them so there is no duplication of efforts between the various at the State level. The groups themselves are more than capable of coordinating their actions on the precinct levels. (It's up to us to form and work those groups locally)
2. Using all the resources the coalition of the Tea Party et.al. groups The individual Precinct groups will need to find and vett candidates they will be able to support for the House of Representatives on the Federal Level on a precinct by precinct basis. The State Houses of Representatives candidates would have to be vetted and agreed on with the State level Tea Party/et.al. groups seeing to it that everyone of the precinct groups will agree to support the picked candidates. The Precinct groups must agree among themselves for their Local Candidate picks.
3. This part will be critical, and will have to be done within the first year after the November election. The individual Precinct Groups will have to utilize the resources of the coalition and make a coordinated movement to have the necessary petitions drawn up, passed around, signed by the required number of voters, have them certified and notarized by the Elections commissions to insure their names are on the Primary Ballots. We will have to choose enough candidates to place on Both the Democratic and the Republican Primary Ballots, and then listen to the Establishment leaders in both parties cry foul.
4. Because we will need to get our chosen candidates on both Party Primary Ballots if we wish to resolve this current mess, we must be a Non-Partisan National Grass Roots Movement if we are to succeed!!! This while simple requires a long term commitment from everyone who actually wants to save the Republic in the face of the Progressive takeover. We will have to do this for the very least the next four elections at the base minimum if we are to succeed. Do you want to be part of the solution and have the gumption to see it through? If you do, write your Tea Party et.al. National Leaders, and demand they take action to bring this about and notify them that you will NOT be supporting those that do not help!
The Tradesman
Look at the crazy "Political correct Laws and Regulations we have been saddled with to supplant the tried and true common sense methods that stood the test of time. For Fifty years there has been a chipping away of our Moral Foundations. The evil ones have decreed that we will be caught between the permissiveness they project on the screen and the now draconian laws they impose on us. In example, I read of a law where Sexting by teens will be met with a jail term regardless of age instead of a good ass whipping to straighten them out. should the ass whipping be given, the parent or teacher would be charged with Assault on a minor and face prosecution. The foul elites that are creating this mess know there is no way we can oppose them if they set all the rules, and they have been doing it for at least fifty years so far. I'm not an advocate of beating your child, but I am an advocate of a proper spanking with a set of moral rules they have to live by until they reach adulthood and can make their own decisions. The Elites abhor that happening because it would expose them for the sick perverted semi-human immoral entities they are.
Here is a simple alternative to the squabbling. We vote against the Incumbent Democratic Socialists Knowing that who we vote for will only be a stopgap to give us a two year window to finally get our picks for candidates forced on to both Parties (Rs and Ds) We know if we vote for a third party, it insures the Incumbent Democratic Socialists and NWO supporters will again win their seats in Congress.
Knowing that and knowing the only party that can win Nationally (Federal Elections) at this juncture is the Republicans, our hands are sort of tied. State elections are iffy, and local elections are actually open and up for grabs.
If we ever actually want the situation outlined above to change, it will take year round work with our boots on the ground in every precinct, to accomplish that goal. It also means that we have dropped the ball consistently since 2009. We must face up to that fact.
We are not united with a single purpose like we were then. Our purpose uniting us then was to stop ACA/Obamacare. See how well that worked out for us after we lost the focus and started to let the various groups start calling the shots for us? I must say it; WE HAVE BECOME LAZY AND COMPLACENT LIKE WE WERE BEFORE 2009 ONCE AGAIN! Even in my own local area I have seen three times where the Democratic supporters have gone door to door stumping for their candidates, and I have yet to see anyone from the Republican/Conservative camp get off their butts and do the same. This is why we stand to lose to the opposition.
We must become united on a single purpose once again, and this time stick to it until we have taken back the control of our government. I suggest we think of that that Purpose and the Focus that goes with it as, The RESTORATION of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC. If we actually want to save the American Republic we will have to do, much more than sit at keyboards and try to inspire others to do the ground work. We will need the two year window leading into the 2016 elections to even begin to start accomplishing that goal!
Here's my idea; The day after the November elections we petition the leaders of the TPP and other "Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian/ETC., to coordinate their actions toward the coming 2016 Primary elections with a specific idea in mind. We are after all supposed to be a grass roots confederation dedicated to stopping further excesses of the massive central government our Federal government has become are we not?
If the various groups will not for whatever excuse or reason, refuse to act to coordinate our efforts at our request, we must stop supporting the ones who will not and start supporting the ones that do. Here is a simple and straightforward way for them to do that;
1. Set up the structure for and help facilitate the formation of precinct level groups, assisting them by coordinating them so there is no duplication of efforts between the various at the State level. The groups themselves are more than capable of coordinating their actions on the precinct levels. (It's up to us to form and work those groups locally)
2. Using all the resources the coalition of the Tea Party et.al. groups The individual Precinct groups will need to find and vett candidates they will be able to support for the House of Representatives on the Federal Level on a precinct by precinct basis. The State Houses of Representatives candidates would have to be vetted and agreed on with the State level Tea Party/et.al. groups seeing to it that everyone of the precinct groups will agree to support the picked candidates. The Precinct groups must agree among themselves for their Local Candidate picks.
3. This part will be critical, and will have to be done within the first year after the November election. The individual Precinct Groups will have to utilize the resources of the coalition and make a coordinated movement to have the necessary petitions drawn up, passed around, signed by the required number of voters, have them certified and notarized by the Elections commissions to insure their names are on the Primary Ballots. We will have to choose enough candidates to place on Both the Democratic and the Republican Primary Ballots, and then listen to the Establishment leaders in both parties cry foul.
4. Because we will need to get our chosen candidates on both Party Primary Ballots if we wish to resolve this current mess, we must be a Non-Partisan National Grass Roots Movement if we are to succeed!!! This while simple requires a long term commitment from everyone who actually wants to save the Republic in the face of the Progressive takeover. We will have to do this for the very least the next four elections at the base minimum if we are to succeed. Do you want to be part of the solution and have the gumption to see it through? If you do, write your Tea Party et.al. National Leaders, and demand they take action to bring this about and notify them that you will NOT be supporting those that do not help!
The Tradesman
Lets Set The Record Straight On Constitutional Preeminence!
There has been much speculation and fear about the potential for the UN Small Arms Treaty to obliterate the intent of the Second Amendment by giving the President the power to Nationally Register all civilian arms and eventually that National Registration could be used to confiscate them. That is a possibility IF, and it's a very definite IF, the Congress or the States don't block those actions of a Treaty that may be Ratified by Reid in an 11th Hour Lame Duck Procedure, just like Pelosi passed the Obamacare Law.
Here is the Truth About Treaties and exactly what they will cover;
Source; http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm it also explains about Executive Orders.
Information on Limited Government in Relation to the Constitutions Treaty Clause.
Source; http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm .
Information on 12 basic American Principles that have been obfuscated by the Progressives/Liberals.NWO for their own advancement;
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/
Here is the Truth About Treaties and exactly what they will cover;
Source; http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm it also explains about Executive Orders.
Information on Limited Government in Relation to the Constitutions Treaty Clause.
Source; http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm .
Information on 12 basic American Principles that have been obfuscated by the Progressives/Liberals.NWO for their own advancement;
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/
First Point of Order; The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is intended to control all of the officials in the three branches of the Federal Government- Executive-Legislative-and Judicial in regard to every single pronouncement,action,decision,agreement, or legislative act. The Officials are Legally bound by their Oath of Office to support Only The Precepts and Principles of the Constitution.
That being the overriding caveat and issue to determine legality, a Treaty, to be Valid,any treaty must be strictly in conformity, meaning free from any conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is supreme over laws and Treaties and a treaty is like unto a Federal Law for all intents and purposes. Article VI Section 2 states " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . " The supreme " Law of the Land " covers/applies to treaties like it applies to any other Federal Law. The reason for the wording in Article VI was to cover the ( Peace Treaty with Great Britain terminating the Revolutionary War ) which was made under the Articles of Confederation and to make it valid under the Constitution, and was also constructed to cover future treaties.
James Madison's official record of the framing of the constitution he made the words " or which shall be made " and following the words " all treaties made ". Madison's record explains this by stating " This insertion was meant to obviate all doubt concerning the force of treaties preexisting, by making the words 'all treaties made' to refer to them, as the words inserted would refer to future treaties "
Special descriptive language was used in Article VI " under the Authority of the United States " that referred to the Constitution to explain the Constitution did not negate any prior laws or treaties made before it's existence. The words " in Pursuance thereof " referred to laws and treaties enacted after the Constitution was Ratified and became the Law of the Land. The words " the United States " had the intent of including every agreement including treaties would be in conformity to the New Constitution. In short, the special language was used to embrace both the old and new governments past and future treaties.
In 1825 the book 'A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, written by William Rawle who was a laywer during Washington's administration and was also one of his appointees to Federal Office wrote; ( In the "Camillus" essays--in defense of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain--published by Hamilton and written mostly by him (some by Rufus King, one of The Framers), Hamilton stated in number 37 that the Constitution itself gives ". . . the force of law to treaties, making them equal with the acts of Congress, the supreme law of the land, . . ." This necessarily means they are valid only if not in conflict with the Constitution, as Article VI expressly provides concerning Federal laws. This limitation on these laws (Acts of Congress) is discussed by Hamilton in The Federalist, number 33, as follows:
"Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the union, . . . only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." [Emphasis per original.] )
Let me assert it once again;
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution Period!
The current myth that they do is championed by Progressive Globalists, and it is one of their most pernicious LIES! In fact it is the greatest of their lies because if they don't have that as the basis of their usurpations, they have nothing.
The outright LIE they purport as true is; " Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution ". Don't believe it. Their follow up lie made to support the first fiction is; " A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside "
These are the FACTS about the limitations of a treaty as confirmed by the U.S.Supreme Court Decisions
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that;
Treaties DO NOT override the Constitution. ( no matter what the Obama Administration and their crony's in Congress might attempt to push on the American people).
Treaties CAN NOT amend the Constitution. In fact a treaty CAN BE NULLIFIED by either a Statute passed by Congress or by a Sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so, when that State or States deems the treaty, the performance of the Treaty as being Self-Destructive. Our most basic right as protected by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that the law of Self-Preservation supersedes and overrules the law of obligation.
A Supreme Court Opinion in a 1956 case (see how it was an Opinion in 1956 and not an edict like today?)[ This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? ] Reid v. Covert Oct.1956,354 U.S.1,pg 17 held the opinion that;
" No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined. ".
This leads us to the correct conclusion about what the Court said, Namely that No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA,GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE can legally supersede the Constitution of the United States. PERIOD,NO QUESTION. The Court even quoted from one of their other opinions in the case of Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. pg 267 where the Court held the Opinion " The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent. " This opinion clearly expresses the fact that any parasitic agreement CAN NOT attach itself to our Republic or to the States in the fashion the traitors in our government wish,without the States and the People acquiescing to it.
The Reid opinion continues with this decree/determination; " This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument. "
Therefore the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that an act of Congress MUST comply with the Constitution of the United States is on FULL parity with a treaty. It would be incorrect in the extreme to assert that a Treaty need not comply with the Constitution, when such and agreement/Treaty can be overridden by a statute that Must legally comply with the Constitution.
It's up to us to make it crystal clear to our Representatives in both Federal and State Governments, that we NO LONGER BELIEVE THEIR BIG LIE. We know that we are not bound by Unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives et.al. that are Unconstitutional in their nature, and we will not tolerate their compliance to such issues any more.
A quote from Thomas Jefferson about the right to renounce Treaties;
"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573;
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution."
The conclusion we must make as a rational thinking people is; 'No law supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land i.e. the Constitution. the meaning of Supreme is Highest or Greatest with only the natural laws of the Creator being above it. The Constitution recognizes that ultimately Supreme Law and endeavors to protect it from negation by inferior laws. In fact the Constitution freely acknowledges our God-Given rights as human beings,and considers them Unalienable Rights, securing them in that acknowledgement.
As you will see we can dispel the falsehood perpetrated on the American people by the usurpers who have deceptively tried to convince us through years of Propaganda and media compliance that Treaties become the Supreme laws of the land, and can supersede the written Constitution. Examine the myth closely and dispel it by really looking at Article VI of the Constitution.
Look carefully at Clause 2 and Clause 3.
Clause 2 - "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means 'Any treaty made must be made in pursuance/compliance of the U.S.Constitution are to be made with strict compliance to the LIMITED CONFINES of that Constitution.It can not be repugnant to ( opposed or contrary ) nor can it supersede he Constitution just like No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede it.
Further; The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (by treaties) that which grants it its authority originally.
Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution ."
This Clause Avows; The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void.
It also is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support "this" Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?
Therefore: " The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it."
Another purveyor of the False Myth that Treaties can overrule the Constitution is the UN.
The self proclaimed 'experts' in international law, commerce, banking, environment, pseudo science; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders -- lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example -- have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of 'treaty-supremacy' for decades. Their 'expertise' is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the 'common man' (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence and cease thinking for ourselves. We need to refrain from listening to their self aggrandizing agendas.
As an example of this twisted thinking/propagandizing look at what John Foster Dulles spoke about;
"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
as we have seen this is in direct opposition to multiple Supreme Court Opinions.The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.The logical extrapolation of that FACT is, the Constitution doesn't 'give' us rights, it only protects them.
Citing the glaring examples of the Dulles brothers and their move towards the progressive nirvana of the New World Order it can be said; The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit -- propaganda.
This is a statement in favor of that Propaganda;
"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."
Further information into the agenda proposed by the Dulles brothers that can be applied to what has happened in the interim and what is happening today is;
Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.
The question of "nationhood" in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?
We The People must take definite and immediate action with our State and Federal Representatives and inform them this is not acceptable conduct on their part. It may be that many or even most of them are ignorant of these facts, so it is our DUTY as American Citizens to educate them on these facts.
We have a way to rescind the usurped powers Congress and the Progressive Politicians took from the people if we have the sense to use it!
That being the overriding caveat and issue to determine legality, a Treaty, to be Valid,any treaty must be strictly in conformity, meaning free from any conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is supreme over laws and Treaties and a treaty is like unto a Federal Law for all intents and purposes. Article VI Section 2 states " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . " The supreme " Law of the Land " covers/applies to treaties like it applies to any other Federal Law. The reason for the wording in Article VI was to cover the ( Peace Treaty with Great Britain terminating the Revolutionary War ) which was made under the Articles of Confederation and to make it valid under the Constitution, and was also constructed to cover future treaties.
James Madison's official record of the framing of the constitution he made the words " or which shall be made " and following the words " all treaties made ". Madison's record explains this by stating " This insertion was meant to obviate all doubt concerning the force of treaties preexisting, by making the words 'all treaties made' to refer to them, as the words inserted would refer to future treaties "
Special descriptive language was used in Article VI " under the Authority of the United States " that referred to the Constitution to explain the Constitution did not negate any prior laws or treaties made before it's existence. The words " in Pursuance thereof " referred to laws and treaties enacted after the Constitution was Ratified and became the Law of the Land. The words " the United States " had the intent of including every agreement including treaties would be in conformity to the New Constitution. In short, the special language was used to embrace both the old and new governments past and future treaties.
In 1825 the book 'A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, written by William Rawle who was a laywer during Washington's administration and was also one of his appointees to Federal Office wrote; ( In the "Camillus" essays--in defense of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain--published by Hamilton and written mostly by him (some by Rufus King, one of The Framers), Hamilton stated in number 37 that the Constitution itself gives ". . . the force of law to treaties, making them equal with the acts of Congress, the supreme law of the land, . . ." This necessarily means they are valid only if not in conflict with the Constitution, as Article VI expressly provides concerning Federal laws. This limitation on these laws (Acts of Congress) is discussed by Hamilton in The Federalist, number 33, as follows:
"Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the union, . . . only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." [Emphasis per original.] )
Let me assert it once again;
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution Period!
The current myth that they do is championed by Progressive Globalists, and it is one of their most pernicious LIES! In fact it is the greatest of their lies because if they don't have that as the basis of their usurpations, they have nothing.
The outright LIE they purport as true is; " Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution ". Don't believe it. Their follow up lie made to support the first fiction is; " A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside "
These are the FACTS about the limitations of a treaty as confirmed by the U.S.Supreme Court Decisions
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that;
Treaties DO NOT override the Constitution. ( no matter what the Obama Administration and their crony's in Congress might attempt to push on the American people).
Treaties CAN NOT amend the Constitution. In fact a treaty CAN BE NULLIFIED by either a Statute passed by Congress or by a Sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so, when that State or States deems the treaty, the performance of the Treaty as being Self-Destructive. Our most basic right as protected by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that the law of Self-Preservation supersedes and overrules the law of obligation.
A Supreme Court Opinion in a 1956 case (see how it was an Opinion in 1956 and not an edict like today?)[ This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? ] Reid v. Covert Oct.1956,354 U.S.1,pg 17 held the opinion that;
" No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined. ".
This leads us to the correct conclusion about what the Court said, Namely that No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA,GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE can legally supersede the Constitution of the United States. PERIOD,NO QUESTION. The Court even quoted from one of their other opinions in the case of Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. pg 267 where the Court held the Opinion " The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent. " This opinion clearly expresses the fact that any parasitic agreement CAN NOT attach itself to our Republic or to the States in the fashion the traitors in our government wish,without the States and the People acquiescing to it.
The Reid opinion continues with this decree/determination; " This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument. "
Therefore the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that an act of Congress MUST comply with the Constitution of the United States is on FULL parity with a treaty. It would be incorrect in the extreme to assert that a Treaty need not comply with the Constitution, when such and agreement/Treaty can be overridden by a statute that Must legally comply with the Constitution.
It's up to us to make it crystal clear to our Representatives in both Federal and State Governments, that we NO LONGER BELIEVE THEIR BIG LIE. We know that we are not bound by Unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives et.al. that are Unconstitutional in their nature, and we will not tolerate their compliance to such issues any more.
A quote from Thomas Jefferson about the right to renounce Treaties;
"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573;
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution."
The conclusion we must make as a rational thinking people is; 'No law supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land i.e. the Constitution. the meaning of Supreme is Highest or Greatest with only the natural laws of the Creator being above it. The Constitution recognizes that ultimately Supreme Law and endeavors to protect it from negation by inferior laws. In fact the Constitution freely acknowledges our God-Given rights as human beings,and considers them Unalienable Rights, securing them in that acknowledgement.
As you will see we can dispel the falsehood perpetrated on the American people by the usurpers who have deceptively tried to convince us through years of Propaganda and media compliance that Treaties become the Supreme laws of the land, and can supersede the written Constitution. Examine the myth closely and dispel it by really looking at Article VI of the Constitution.
Look carefully at Clause 2 and Clause 3.
Clause 2 - "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means 'Any treaty made must be made in pursuance/compliance of the U.S.Constitution are to be made with strict compliance to the LIMITED CONFINES of that Constitution.It can not be repugnant to ( opposed or contrary ) nor can it supersede he Constitution just like No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede it.
Further; The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (by treaties) that which grants it its authority originally.
Clause 3 - "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution ."
This Clause Avows; The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void.
It also is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support "this" Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?
Therefore: " The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it."
Another purveyor of the False Myth that Treaties can overrule the Constitution is the UN.
The self proclaimed 'experts' in international law, commerce, banking, environment, pseudo science; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders -- lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example -- have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of 'treaty-supremacy' for decades. Their 'expertise' is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the 'common man' (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence and cease thinking for ourselves. We need to refrain from listening to their self aggrandizing agendas.
As an example of this twisted thinking/propagandizing look at what John Foster Dulles spoke about;
"Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, ...can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."
as we have seen this is in direct opposition to multiple Supreme Court Opinions.The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away.The logical extrapolation of that FACT is, the Constitution doesn't 'give' us rights, it only protects them.
Citing the glaring examples of the Dulles brothers and their move towards the progressive nirvana of the New World Order it can be said; The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit -- propaganda.
This is a statement in favor of that Propaganda;
"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."
Further information into the agenda proposed by the Dulles brothers that can be applied to what has happened in the interim and what is happening today is;
Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.
The question of "nationhood" in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress. A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture?
We The People must take definite and immediate action with our State and Federal Representatives and inform them this is not acceptable conduct on their part. It may be that many or even most of them are ignorant of these facts, so it is our DUTY as American Citizens to educate them on these facts.
We have a way to rescind the usurped powers Congress and the Progressive Politicians took from the people if we have the sense to use it!
Reflect Carefully on these things, and then, take back OUR government!
McFixit1
McFixit1
Time to Repeal the 16th Amendment
Time to Repeal the 16th Amendment
Keli Carender - National Grassroots Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots;
Part of the brilliance of the Constitution of the United States is that it spells out limitations of the government. But early in the 20th century, a couple of departures from this ideal led to major problems in America.
The 18th Amendment ushered in the era of Prohibition and led to unprecedented crime, graft and corruption across the nation. This use of the Constitution to limit the rights of the governed in 1920 was eventually recognized as a disaster and Prohibition ended with the adoption of the 21st Amendment, the sole purpose of which was to repeal the 18th.
Unfortunately, there’s another constitutional amendment that limits the rights of the governed which has not yet been fixed. The 16th Amendment, adopted in 1913, allowed Congress to tax the income of Americans and led to the creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a means of enforcing these taxes.
Attempts at tax reform in the past just nibbled around the edges because these reforms never went to the root of the problem: the 16th Amendment itself. America is ready for a fair, fixed, and flat tax code and with your help we can make it happen.
It’s time to dump the IRS. The complexity, the extortion, the cronyism, the cost, the uncertainty, the corruption, the lack of transparency, and the targeting of private citizens by this agency has made it the most reviled in government.
No one is suggesting we not pay our taxes. But we, as a nation, can do better than a tax policy that punishes success as the income tax and the IRS do. America is ready for a fair, fixed, and flat tax code.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) has been a champion on this issue. His efforts to repeal the 16th Amendment enjoy the support of Tea Party Patriots and I hope you too can support his efforts in the next Congress.
You can also make your voice heard by signing the petition to repeal the 16th Amendment. It only takes a minute and by adding your voice to those of other Americans, we all have greater assurances of being heard in Washington, DC.
Americans spoke loud and clear regarding Prohibition and that error was corrected 13 years later. It’s been more than a century since the 16th Amendment was approved so it is long overdue for repeal. By uniting behind this effort, we take a stand for individual liberty and take an important step on the road to increasing our personal and economic freedom.
Keli Carender - National Grassroots Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots;
Part of the brilliance of the Constitution of the United States is that it spells out limitations of the government. But early in the 20th century, a couple of departures from this ideal led to major problems in America.
The 18th Amendment ushered in the era of Prohibition and led to unprecedented crime, graft and corruption across the nation. This use of the Constitution to limit the rights of the governed in 1920 was eventually recognized as a disaster and Prohibition ended with the adoption of the 21st Amendment, the sole purpose of which was to repeal the 18th.
Unfortunately, there’s another constitutional amendment that limits the rights of the governed which has not yet been fixed. The 16th Amendment, adopted in 1913, allowed Congress to tax the income of Americans and led to the creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a means of enforcing these taxes.
Attempts at tax reform in the past just nibbled around the edges because these reforms never went to the root of the problem: the 16th Amendment itself. America is ready for a fair, fixed, and flat tax code and with your help we can make it happen.
It’s time to dump the IRS. The complexity, the extortion, the cronyism, the cost, the uncertainty, the corruption, the lack of transparency, and the targeting of private citizens by this agency has made it the most reviled in government.
No one is suggesting we not pay our taxes. But we, as a nation, can do better than a tax policy that punishes success as the income tax and the IRS do. America is ready for a fair, fixed, and flat tax code.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) has been a champion on this issue. His efforts to repeal the 16th Amendment enjoy the support of Tea Party Patriots and I hope you too can support his efforts in the next Congress.
You can also make your voice heard by signing the petition to repeal the 16th Amendment. It only takes a minute and by adding your voice to those of other Americans, we all have greater assurances of being heard in Washington, DC.
Americans spoke loud and clear regarding Prohibition and that error was corrected 13 years later. It’s been more than a century since the 16th Amendment was approved so it is long overdue for repeal. By uniting behind this effort, we take a stand for individual liberty and take an important step on the road to increasing our personal and economic freedom.
VOTER FRAUD - OH NO IT IS REAL
Vote Fraud News9/26/14: Connecticut Democrat state representative arrested on 19 charges of vote fraud
Democrat State Representative Christina Ayala has been arrested on 19 charges of voting fraud, including: eight misdemeanor counts of fraudulent voting, ten felony counts of primary or enrollment violations and one felony count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Her arraignment is scheduled for October 7. Bridgeport State Rep. Christina Ayala arrested on 19 voting fraud charges , NH Register, September 26, 2014
9/18/14: Ex-Kentucky judge disbarred due to vote fraud
Former Clay County Circuit Judge Cletus R. Maricle has been permanently disbarred following his guilty plea of committing vote fraud. Court documents showed Maricle had used his position to bribe officials, candidates for county offices, defendants in his court, and family members of defendants in his court. Ex-Judge Convicted of Vote Fraud , Lexington Herald-Leader, September 18, 2014.
9/9/14: Georgia launches fraud investigation into voter registration group
A preliminary investigation into the New Georgia Project has revealed significant illegal activities including forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on releases and applications with false or inaccurate information. The New Georgia Project is an offshoot of the organization Third Sector Development, a group founded and led by Democrat GA House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. State launches fraud investigation into voter registration group , Channel Two Action News, September 9, 2014.
8/25/14: Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation
The Fairfax County Electoral Board referred 17 individuals to the DOJ for investigation of possible voter fraud. The individuals seem to have voted in both Fairfax County as well as throughout Maryland in the 2012 elections, and in the case of some individuals, multiple elections over the last decade. Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation , Fairfax County Press Release, August 25, 2014.
8/21/14: Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland
Virginia Voters Alliance drew attention to multiple duplicate voter registrations in Maryland and Virginia. They said there are 14,646 duplicate registrations between Fairfax County, VA and Maryland alone. If a voter is convicted of voter fraud in Maryland, they are still allowed to vote, as it is only a misdemeanor; in Virginia, it can result in a year in prison and $2,500 fine. Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland , Daily Caller, August 21, 2014.
6/27/14: Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race
More than 140 people are alleged to have listed their current address as a mail center in the basement of a Minneapolis, Minn. commercial property while registering to vote. An investigation has been started as to whether or not there is a coordinated effort to register voters using the 419 Cedar Avenue address in Minneapolis. Some of these “voters” may also have been registered without knowing. Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race , Eyewitness 5 ABC News, June 27, 2014.
6/20/14: Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges
An Alabama grand jury indicted the girlfriend of Dothan, AL commissioner Amos Newsome on 23 counts of vote fraud in the campaign to re-elect Newsome last August. The alleged vote fraud scheme includes two additional women – one charged with 20 counts of vote fraud, the other charged with 10. Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges , Dothan First, June 20, 2014.
6/12/14: Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race due to vote fraud
A Texas judge invalidated a city commissioner election as a result of vote fraud. The judge carefully evaluated each of the 44 contested votes and found many of them were cast by people who deliberately and illegally voted under a “home is where the heart is” residency standard – they registered at homes belonging to the fraudulently-elected commissioner’s friends, neighbors, and relatives. Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race , KRGV, June 12, 2014.
6/10/14: NH man pleads guilty to voting illegally
A Massachusetts man pled guilty to illegally voting in both the 2008 and 2012 NH primaries. He was charged with one felony county and two misdemeanor counts of “wrongful voting” under NH law for traveling from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to cast votes in both primaries. He was fined $5,000 and given a suspended prison term of one to three years. Carver man pleads guilty to voting illegally in NH , Taunton Daily Gazette, June 10, 2014.
5/22/14: Former Bolivar city council member sentenced for vote fraud
Former Bolivar, TN City Councilwoman Brenda Woods was sentenced for corralling felons to vote for her in the city’s 2009 municipal elections. Woods transported three felons to the polls to case votes for her. She used this method for her election to city council and her failed mayoral bid. She received a suspended sentence of two years in prison, and has lost her voting rights and her ability to run for elected office. Former Bolivar city council member sentenced , JRN News Channel 5, May 22, 2014.
5/12/14: Nashville election worker fired over double voting
A Tennessee state elections commissioner is questioning whether to certify election results after six people voted twice in a Davidson County election last week. The fraudulent voters cast absentee ballots and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. The election worker has been fired. Nashville election worker fired over double voting , Tennessean, May 12, 2014.
4/21/14: Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud
A California mayoral candidate is alleged to have recruited between 15 and 20 non-voters to cast absentee ballots illegally in April. The formal complaint submitted to the Los Angeles County District Attorney states that candidate Robert Garcia hired a bus to transport the individuals into the district to request absentee ballots. Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud , Hews Media Group, April 21, 2014.
4/21/14: Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud
An illegal immigrant with a Nevada ID was arrested in California on two felony charges for allegedly using a false ID to register to vote and also for casting ballots in NV elections. Authorities confirmed that the woman also voted in both the 2008 and 2010 elections. Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud, KOLO News, April 21, 2014.
5/8/14: Final Report: 117 fraudulent votes found in investigation
A two-year investigation of voter fraud in Iowa uncovered 117 illegally cast votes resulting in six criminal convictions. The crimes included non-citizen voting and felony voting. Final Report: 117 Fraudulent Votes Found in Investigation , The Des Moines Register, May 8, 2014.
5/9/14: Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud
Houston County Sheriff’s Office arrested three women on charges of voter fraud after the narrowly decided election. Police conducted a thorough investigation in which they discovered that the three women created and submitted false ballots in August 2013. Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud , WTVY News, May 9, 2014.
4/23/14: Two more indicted for vote fraud in Hamilton County
A poll worker in Hamilton County, OH is the eighth person to be indicted on charges of illegal voting in 2013. Authorities say that Ellen Elizabeth Duncan submitted an absentee ballot and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. Two More Indicted for Vote Fraud in Hamilton County , WVXU News, April 23, 2014.
5/8/14: Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment
New Jersey authorities arrested mayoral candidate Rigo Rodriguez and his wife on charges that they submitted ballots as votes for people who did not vote in 2010. Prosecutors also stated that Rodriguez instructed campaign workers to lie to authorities investigating the allegations. Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
5/13/14: Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election
Pennsylvania police have charged a man with ballot tampering in Pike County. Myron Cowher allegedly stole 70 ballots and planned to use different colored ink pens so the ballots did not all look the same. Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election , The News Eagle, May 13, 2014.
5/1/14: Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations
The Alabama Supreme Court will reconsider allegations of voter fraud by college students. The students allegedly received illegal alcohol in exchange for their votes. Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations , WIAT News, May 1, 2014.
4/15/14: Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election
Texas officials recently arrested two felons for alleged voter fraud after voting in May 2012. The two men allegedly knew they were not eligible to vote in the election. Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election , Alice Echo News Journal, April 15, 2014.
2/17/14: New York: Noncitizens to Vote in New York?
Under a plan being pushed by de Blasio and the council, noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, would be given city-issued identification cards. . . .GOP State Senator Greg Ball this would open the door to noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote illegally in New York State Elections. N.Y. GOP Sen. says Bill de Blasio plans for illegal voting in New York , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
1/27/14: New Hampshire: Temporary Campaign Staffer Continues to be "Voted" After Moving
We confirmed with the city clerk’s office that a vote under Former Jeanne Shaheen spokesperson Caitlin Legack's name and address was recorded. But Legacki moved out of New Hampshire shortly after the 2008 election (in which she voted) and was in St. Louis on Election Day 2012, working for U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. ." Vote fraud: It, and mistakes, happen, Union Leader, January 27, 2014.
1/27/14: Texas: Hispanics are the Victims of Vote Fraud
In one example listed in the lawsuit, 23 voters who cast a ballot in favor of Rivera were registered to a home on East 6th street in Weslaco. Controversy over voter fraud continues in Weslaco, Action 4 News, January 27, 2014.
1/12/14: Texas: Campaign Workers trade cash, drugs, beer and more for votes
Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes. Texas Vote-Buying Case Casts Glare on Tradition of Election Day Goads, New York Times, January 12, 2014.
12/30/13: New York: Police Prove How Easy Voter Impersonation is next door to the Brennan Center
Investigators posing as dead voters were allowed to cast ballots for this year’s primary and general elections, thanks to antiquated Board of Election registration records and lax oversight by poll workers, authorities said. Undercover DOI agents were able to access voting booths in 61 instances — including 39 dead people, 14 jail birds and eight non-residents. The dead can vote in NYC, New York Post, December 30, 2013.
12/27/13: North Carolina: Fraudlent Election Requires "Do Over"
Voters in the Robeson County town of Pembroke will go to the polls a second time to elect town council members after the State Board of Elections found many “irregularities” in the November election and ordered a new vote. In a written order released Friday, the state board found that problems “occurred to such an extent in this election that they tainted the results of all the Pembroke municipal elections and cast doubt upon their fairness.”Irregularities found in Pembroke election; town to vote anew in 2014, News & Observer, December 27, 2013.
12/18/13: Ohio: More Noncitizen
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution. The alleged crime would be a notable case of voter fraud in a key swing state. By law, only American citizens are allowed the privilege of casting ballots for the nation's leaders. Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state, Fox News, December 18, 2013.
12/13/13: Mississipi: Former Democrat Candidate Caught
Williams registered a woman who is a convicted felon and not eligible to vote. Buckley said Williams also allegedly falsely registered another person who was ineligible to vote.Former congressional candidate, Cobby Williams, arrested on voter fraud charge, Mississippi Business Journal, December 13, 2013.
12/4/13: Minnesota: Mentally Ill Felons in Prison Hospitals Vote
He had voted in a DFL primary election for District 19A, which was won by now state Rep. Clark Johnson of North Mankato. When Olivayes was interviewed by the detective, he allegedly admitted to applying for and casting an absentee ballot early this year. He told the detective that he thought he was casting a vote to decide who would be in charge of the Security Hospital. Suspect cast absentee ballot from Minnesota Security Hospital, Mankato Free Press, December 4, 2013
11/30/13: Kentucky: Drug Dealers Running Fraudlent Elections
There was a time when vote fraud was so pervasive in Clay County that a lot of honest people saw no reason to vote, said Ken Bolin, pastor of Manchester Baptist Church. Decades of poverty and vote-buying led to widespread corruption in Clay County, Hearld Leader, November 30, 2013
11/19/13: Pennsylvania: Pre-Filled out Absentee Ballots
"We did not fill out the applications for the absentee ballots at all, they were already pre-checked out and everything was filled out for us," Rasco said.Plattsburgh absentee ballots under investigation, Channel 3 News, November 19, 2013
10/14/13: Wisconsin: Man Votes 5 Times
A Milwaukee man pleaded guilty Monday to illegally voting five times last year in West Milwaukee, when in fact he did not have residency there. Brown was among 10 people charged in March with a variety of charges related to voter fraud.Milwaukee man pleads guilty to five counts of voter fraud, Journal Sentential, October 14, 2013
9/11/13: New York: Voter Impersonation Ignored by Police
Police watch multiple people attempt to impersonate voters and do nothing. The NYPD later answers that "allegations of voting fraud weren't under the department's purview." Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg, Gotham News, September 11, 2013.
8/1/13: New York: Election Official Abuses Seniors at Home She Manages
Democrat Election Commissioner Frances Knapp was indicted and plead not guilty to 46 felony counts and 48 misdemeanor counts of official misconduct and other charges. The most serious charges against Knapp, however, involve Knapp's involvement in absentee ballot fraud. Knapp allegedly tampered with the computer system sending of absentee ballots. Many of these victimized voters were residents of Maplewood Apartments, a senior living complex in Poughkeepsie managed by Knapp. Eric Shawn, More on NY Vote Fraud Scandal, Apartment Manager Vote Fraud?, RNLA Blog, August 1, 2013 (Post includes multiple links to local sources).
6/17/13: INDIANA: Ballot Fraud: Obama-Clinton primary
“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Dem Official sentenced to prison for ’08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary, Fox News, Jun 17, 2013.
6/14/13: FLORIDA: FEMA Official: Vote Fraud
“FEMA official charged in voter fraud case. Federal Emergency Management Agency official has been arrested in connection with a voter fraud case in St. Johns County, Florida. Michel Pawlowski, 68, was named in a complaint last fall alleging voter fraud. He lives in Maryland. His daughter ran for St. Augustine Beach city commission and won.” FEMA Official Charged in Voter Fraud Case, News 4 Jax, June 14, 2013.
6/5/13: South Dakota: vote fraud, absentee ballots
“The Daily Republic reports that Craig Guymon was arrested on charges of voter fraud. Police say Guymon voted Tuesday morning at the Mitchell Career and Technical Education Academy and later returned an absentee ballot to the Davison Auditor's Office.” Associated Press, South Dakota man arrested and charged with voter fraud, Rapid City Journal, Jun 5, 2013.
5/31/13: FLORIDA: Florida Congressman: Vote Fraud
“Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe. The congressman said he thinks the plot was a “well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout” and that the system is “prone to fraud.” AP, Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe, Fox News, May 31, 2013.
5/6/13: NEW YORK: Scheme to Steal Election Through Dead, Non-Existent and Moved Voting
“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Report: Mount Vernon Group Says Voting Fraud Has Riddled School Elections, Mount Vernon Daily Voice, May 6, 2013.
3/21/13: WISCONSIN: Milwaukee County: Double Voting
“Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote. Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.” Steve Schultze and Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Prosecutors Charge 10 With Voter Fraud, Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Mar. 21, 2013.
2/19/13: OHIO: Melowese Richardson: multiple voting
"Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well...Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election." Eric Shawn, Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation, Fox News, Feb. 19, 2013.
2/18/13: ILLINOIS: absentee ballot fraud, voter intimidation
"Aurora Ivarra says she was intimidated when a town employee wearing a badge came to her door on Sunday and tried to convince her that voting absentee or by mail is illegal... The town of Cicero claims it was sending people door-to-door to investigate alleged absentee voter fraud. The town was concerned about a record number of requests for mail in ballots." Cicero candidates accuse each other of voter fraud, ABC Local, Feb. 18, 2013.
2/14/13: INDIANA: Mike Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
"A North Vernon man who worked on a former Jeffersonville mayor’s re-election campaign in 2011 has agreed to plea guilty to three counts of vote fraud in Jennings County Circuit Court on charges related to a campaign there." Matt Koesters, Ex-campaign worker accepts plea in voter-fraud case, News and Tribune, Feb. 14, 2013.
1/31/13: OHIO: Dominique Atkins: double voting
"A Northeast Side woman was fined $500 today for voting twice in the 2010 general election. Dominique Atkins, 38, of Barnes Drive E., pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of attempted illegal voting." John Futty, Woman fined for voting twice in 2010 election, Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 31, 2013.
1/23/13: WISCONSIN: Leonard K. Brown, Chad Vander Hyden: double voting
"Milwaukee prosecutors are investigating at least two instances of suspected voter fraud from the presidential election in November, court records reveal. In one matter, investigators seek records that might prove Leonard K. Brown voted twice in the November election, once in Milwaukee and again in West Milwaukee. The other suggests a Mukwonago man voted there and in West Allis. That man, Chad Vander Hyden, was arrested on charges of double voting in December after he declined West Allis detectives' invitation to come in and discuss what appeared to be his signature on poll records." Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee prosecutors investigating voter fraud, Journal Sentinel, Jan. 23, 2013.
1/21/13: INDIANA: Michael R. Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
"A North Vernon man and longtime Jennings County Democratic Party worker will plead guilty to three counts of vote fraud, according to terms of a plea agreement filed Friday in Jennings County Circuit Court. Michael R. Marshall, 60, will plead guilty to the three offenses, all Class D felony charges that his attorneys will argue to be reduced to Class A misdemeanor charges before Judge Jon Webster." Bryce Mayer, Plea agreement reached in voter fraud case, Plain Dealer-Sun, Jan. 21, 2013.
1/18/13: WISCONSIN: Karl Reinelt: felon voting
"Karl Reinelt, A 51-year-old felon, was charged in Waukesha County Circuit Court with one count of election fraud after voting in the Nov. 6, 2012 election." Steve Garrison, Pewaukee felon charged with voter fraud, Living Lake County, Jan. 18, 2013.
1/10/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: absentee ballot fraud
"Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico “Jack” Villamaino has been released on his own recognizance after he and his wife Courtney Llewellyn answered to new charges in their voter fraud case...The two are accused in a voter fraud scheme, where in which 280 East Longmeadow residents had their party registration changed from Democratic to unenrolled. 280 applications for absentee ballots were then dropped off at the East Longmeadow Town Clerk’s office." Laura Hutchinson, New Charges for Villamaino and Llewellyn in Voter Fraud Case, WWLP, Jan. 10, 2013.
1/9/13: NORTH CAROLINA: felon voting
"The Scotland County Board of Elections is expected to initiate fraud charges against a felon that officials say voted during in last year’s general election." Mary Katherine Murphy, Board to pursue voter fraud case, Laurinburg Exchange, Jan. 9, 2013.
1/2/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Stephen "Stat" Smith: absentee ballot fraud
"According to a Dec. 20 statement from the US attorney’s office , Smith allegedly submitted fraudulent requests for absentee ballots, then cast those ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Prosecutors say Smith also knowingly delivered absentee ballots to ineligible voters, knowing that their votes in his favor would be fraudulent. Smith was charged with two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. He faces up to two years in prison, and prosecutors will recommend a 6-month sentence, according to his plea agreement, which also requires that he vacate his seat in the Legislature and prohibits him from seeking another elected office for the next five years." Martine Powers, Everett legislator, charged with voter fraud, vacates seat, Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2013.
12/28/12: TENNESSEE: voter impersonation, double voting
"District 4 Election Commissioner Carl Payne reported an incident in which "a father cast an absentee ballot, the son voted in person and then the son changes clothes and returned to vote as his father. We learned of this from a written statement from the poll manager." Among other cases reported by Payne (who was defeated Nov. 6 by Sissie Ferguson): A voter came to cast a ballot, gave a name that was on the poll book, signed the receipt book and was allowed to vote. Another person using the same name came to vote later that day, "and was informed he'd already voted. The second person provided proof of identity," Payne reported. Also, a voter cast a ballot in person at the proper precinct — and then prepared a provisional ballot, including a sworn affidavit, at another precinct." Henry Bailey, Potential voter fraud in DeSoto turned over to investigators, The Commercial Appeal, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/20/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
"A 61-year0old Belleville man was sentenced Thursday to five years in prison for submitting phony absentee ballots while he was working on the 2007 election campaign of state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-29)." Belleville man gets five years for voter fraud, Belleville Patch, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/14/12: OHIO: double voting
"Auglaize County officials are looking into possible voter fraud after discovering one resident may have voted twice in the Nov. 6 election." Amy Kronenberger, POssible voter fraud incident in Auglaize County, The Daily Standard, Dec. 14, 2012.
12/10/12: NEVADA: Mike Hays: non-resident voting
"Court documents indicate that Hays was registered to vote in both Mohave County and Coconino County. He used a campaign worker’s address in Kingman along with that of a shooting range, also in Kingman, when he filled out paperwork to run for sheriff. But prosecutors say he was actually living in Flagstaff and working for the Arizona Department of Corrections in Winslow." Hays pleads guilty to voter fraud, Mohave Valley Daily News, Dec. 10, 2012.
12/3/12: MINNESOTA: William Manzano, Braulio Manzano: noncitizen voting
"Brothers William and Braulio Manzano were each charged Friday, Nov. 30, in Mower County Court. According to the court complaints, the brothers each checked the boxes on their voter applications that indicate they are not U.S. citizens. However, both men continued to fill out their applications and signed the portion that indicates they are citizens who can vote and that providing false information is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine." Matt Peterson, Two Charged with Voter Fraud in Austin, Austin Daily Herald, Dec. 3, 2012.
11/29/12: MINNESOTA: voter impersonation
"A Cottage Grove man told police Nov. 6 that someone had committed voter fraud by signing his name at a polling place, making it impossible for him to vote. The incident was being investigated."Cottage Grove police reports for Nov. 29: Drugs, suspicious activity, voter fraud, burglary, South Washington County Bulletin, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/29/12: OREGON: Deanna Swenson: ballot tampering
"A grand jury has indicted a Clackamas County woman, for alleged ballot tampering. Deanna Swenson was a temp working for Clackamas County Elections." Clackamas Woman Indicted for Voter Fraud, OPB, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/26/12: OHIO: double voting
"Three cases of possible voter fraud are under investigation in Allen County. Ken Terry, director of the Allen County Board of Elections, announced the cases were passed on to the prosecutor's office after three people voted twice in the Nov. 6 election. He told the board during a special meeting at the Allen County Board of Elections on Monday." Sarah Stemen, Three possible cases of election fraud sent to Allen County prosecutor, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/26/12: MINNESOTA: noncitizen voting
"The Mower County Auditor-Treasurer’s office, after its review of local election ballots, discovered three people who may have illegally voted this year. According to Auditor-Treasurer Doug Groh, all three people indicated that they are not citizens on their voter registration forms. However, the three people continued to fill out their forms and also voted." Matt Peterson, Groh: 3 local ballots showed illegal voting, Austin Daily Herald, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/23/12: IOWA: Tehvedin Murgic, Laurie McCarroll, Leonard Blower: noncitizen voting
"A citizen of Bosnia and two Canadian citizens have been charged with election fraud and fraudulent practices for allegedly registering and voting in Iowa without U.S. citizenship. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said it issued a citation to appear in court for 28-year-old Tehvedin Murgic, of Clive. The DCI said he is a citizen of Bosnia and registered and voted on Nov. 2, 2010. Murgic's attorney did not immediately return a call. Arrest warrants were issued for 66-year-old Laurie McCarroll and 53-year-old Leonard Blower, both of Shenandoah. The DCI said they are Canadian citizens who registered and voted in a school election in September 2011. The DCI said it believes they are no longer living in the United States." 3 more election fraud cases filed, Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2012.
11/21/12: OHIO: double voting
"The Lorain County Board of Elections is investigating a Henrietta Township man who cast two ballots during the presidential election. The man, who could potentially face criminal charges for voter fraud, requested an absentee ballot on Oct. 23, and the ballot was returned to the elections board Nov. 3, according to board records. The man then voted at his polling place Nov. 6." Brad Dicken, Henrietta Township man accused of voting twice, The Chronicle Telegram, Nov. 21, 2012.
11/21/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: noncitizen voting
"Two Canadian nationals and a Mexican national were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail. The felony charges allege they registered to vote in Iowa and voted in at least one election. The arrests followed an investigations by an Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent who was assigned to work with Secretary of State Matt Schultz to root out voter fraud Charged are 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell, 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, and 40-year-old Maria Ayon-Fernandez, all of Council Bluffs." Three noncitizens charged with voter fraud in Iowa, Associated Press, Nov. 20, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: Sang Soo Park: improper influence
"A case of election fraud occurred in Flushing when a Korean-American translator helping voters at PS 20 was caught directing them to vote for Democratic candidates. A volunteer poll watcher confirmed the incident. The translator, Sang Soo Park, was expelled from the polling place for breaking the law by telling at least three voters to choose the Democratic slate, according to the observer, attorney Daniel Baek." Peter C. Mastrosimone, Election fraud in Flushing by Korean poll interpreter, Queens Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: voter impersonation
"there were at least two instances of “outright voter fraud” — one in the city of Poughkeepise and another in Pleasant Valley — where a voter went to vote only to find someone had forged that person’s name and voted in their stead." Patricia Doxsey, Dutchess County voting marred by controversy, Daily Freeman, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/6/12: NORTH CAROLINA: Andrew Gail Holmes: double voting
"An individual by the name of Andrew Gail Holmes voted early in Sampson County, North Carolina and then appeared at their precinct today to vote again, according to the staff director of the Sampson County Board of Elections, Donna Mashburn. “We have a gentleman who had early voted,” Mashburn told me this morning, “and went to his precinct to vote. We are aware of it. We will handle the issue at canvassing.”" Bryan Preston, Democrat Double Voter Caught in North Carolina, PJ Tatler, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/6/12: CALIFORNIA: posthumous voting
"According to state records, Carol has voted in the last two presidential elections, despite having passed away...NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001." Stephen Stock, Felipe Escamilla and Kevin Nious, Dead and Still Voting, NBC Bay Area, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/5/12: NORTH CAROLINA: improper influence of mentally disabled
"The father of a mentally handicapped woman claims his daughter and others were “carted off” to a North Carolina polling site last week and “coaxed” into voting for President Obama by workers of the group home where she stays Judson Berger, Group home accused of taking patients to vote for Obama, Fox News, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: PENNSYLVANIA: destruction of voter registrations
"The Community Voters Project is a "non-partisan" lefty organization whose mission is to register people to vote, with a particular emphasis on minorities. In the 2008 election, they had offices in 10 states and registered around 300,000 minority voters. So far, so good. This year, however, it seems they aren't registering everyone who wants to vote. Outside a CVP office in Philadelphia, for example, they shredded and threw away numerous registration forms. A number of these were for people trying to register as a Republican." Mike Flynn, Philly activist group shreds GOP registrations, Breitbart, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: VIRGINIA: improperly influencing the elderly
"The daughter of an Alzheimer’s patient is fighting mad that a Henrico County rehabilitation facility cast her mother’s vote in the face of warnings that the elderly woman “doesn’t know what she is doing.” Janet Benedict, of Louisa, told Watchdog.org she was stunned when the activities director at Lexington Court informed her that 81-year-old Dorene Hagen had voted via absentee ballot." Kenric Ward, VA: Power of attorney doesn't stop Alzheimer's patient from voting, Watchdog, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Joel Santiago-Vazquez, Bruno Paulino, Jose Jimenez, Marcos Acosta: noncitizen voter registration fraud
"FOX Undercover found out something else about Santiago-Vazquez. He's been registered to vote from his home address in Lawrence since 2010. Our investigation shows he's not the only registered voter in Lawrence who is not a citizen. By cross-checking Lawrence voter records with criminal records that included records indicating lack of citizenship, we found three others: * Bruno Paulino is a legal resident detained by immigration authorities earlier this year, has been a registered Lawrence voter since 2009; * Jose Jimenez, a legal resident who faces "potential deportation to the Dominican Republic", according to federal court records, has been a registered Republican in Lawrence since 2010; * and Marcos Acosta, picked up during a recent immigration sweep, has been a registered voter in Lawrence since 2008." Non-citizens registered to vote in Lawrence but officials shrug, Fox Boston, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/3/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
"The listing, "Adolf Hitler, John...666 Heltz...la," puts his supposed residence in Los Angeles. It was part of a batch of roughly 200 voter registrations that election officials say were flagged as possibly fraudulent, forged, or duplicated by the group that collected them, FieldWorks, a private Washington, D.C. based firm. FieldWorks, says it works largely with Democratic candidates, causes and progressive organizations collecting signatures for voter registration or ballot initiatives across the country." Eric Shawn, Hitler Appears on Ohio Voter Registration Form, Fox News, Nov. 4, 2012.
11/2/12: TEXAS: vote harvesting ring, posthumous voting, absentee ballot fraud
"The Texas Secretary of State has asked the state Attorney General to look into a complaint of "vote-harvesting" centered around a San Antonio cemetery." Complaint alleges widespread voter fraud in South Texas, Gonzales Cannon, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: NEVADA: double voting
"A criminal complaint accuses Roxanne Rubin of casting a ballot at an early voting location in Henderson on Oct. 29, then trying to vote again at a polling site in Las Vegas on the same day."Woman arrested in Nevada for alleged voter fraud, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: OREGON: ballot tampering
"A temporary worker with the Clackamas County Elections Division is under investigation over a possible criminal violation of Oregon Election Laws. Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson Jeff Manning confirmed Friday that the state is investigating whether the employee tampered with ballots." Chad Carter, Clackamas Co. elections employee investigated for ballot fraud, KOIN 6, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: SOUTH DAKOTA: vote buying
"The South Dakota GOP accused Democrats on Thursday of trying to buy votes by serving food at a series of get-out-the-vote rallies" SD Republicans accuse Dems of trading chili for votes, Associated Press, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: MULTIPLE STATES: voting machine malfunction
"Former Town Councilwoman Linda Lyons faces voter fraud-related charges after allegedly trying to vote twice during last year’s election, according to a Wake County prosecutor." Former Morrisville councilwoman faces voter fraud charge, News Observer, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/30/12: ARIZONA: absentee ballot fraud
"The Pima County Recorders Office is investigating a case of voter fraud. F. Ann Rodriguez said, while verifying signatures, her operators came across a signature that did not match that of two voters, a husband and wife. Her office then contacted the couple, who confirmed they had not even received their ballots in the mail" Voter fraud investigation underway in Pima County, KVOA News, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/29/12: IOWA: absentee ballot fraud
"Muscatine resident Craig White says a Democratic campaign worker somehow gave his 75-year-old mother the impression that it was OK for her to sign his name on an absentee ballot request form when he wasn’t home." Absentee ballot issues reported in 2 Iowa counties, Des Moines Register, Oct. 29, 2012.
10/23/12: LOUISIANA: Douglas Barthlomew Claiborne: voter registration fraud
"Sheriff's deputies booked Douglas "Barthlomew" Claiborne, 30, in Mansfield, into the DeSoto Parish Detention Center on a warrant issued by the 10th Judicial District in Natchitoches Parish. The Times reports the arrest warrant was based on a complaint by the Louisiana Secretary of State's Election and Compliance Unit. It accuses Claiborne of "procuring falsified voter registration applications."DeSoto School Board member booked with voter fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 23, 2012.
10/22/12: ARKANSAS: vote buying
"[former Democrat state Rep. Hudson]Hallum and three others have pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud during the special election that put him in the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2011. A total of nine people have been charged by federal and state authorities in connection with the plan." Eric Shawn, Vodka for votes: Arkansas rep, operatives await sentencing in fraud scheme, Fox News, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: COLORADO: electioneering
"Democratic volunteers offered people free t-shirts and pizza for voting early and posted official Obama campaign signs within 100 feet of the polling location, which is against federal and state election laws." Eli Stokols, Colorado GOP accuses Obama volunteers of electioneering at CSU, Fox KDVR, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: MICHIGAN: absentee ballot fraud
"More than 800 absentee ballots have not made it to voters in Auburn Hills and are missing..." Auburn Hills missing hundreds of absentee ballots, Associated Press, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: FLORIDA: voter suppression
"The Florida Division of elections and state law enforcement officials are investigating "multiple" bogus letters sent to Florida voters to inform them that they have been flagged as suspected illegal, non-citizen voters...The letters appear to be going mostly or entirely to Republicans in Florida." Voter suppression efforts in Fla - against Republicans, Tampa Bay Times, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/19/12: MICHIGAN: voter registration fraud
"Eugenia Huguenin says breast cancer killed her daughter long before a voter registration card with Michele Huguenin's name and supposed signature was filed this year in Palm Beach County." Andy Reid and Barbara Hijek, Dead woman among names on disputed voter forms, Sun Sentinel, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/19/12: VIRGINIA: Colin Small: destruction of voter registration applications, disclosure of voter registration information
"Colin Small, was caught throwing out voter registration forms, Richmond, Va., the Rockingham County sheriff's office confirmed to CBS News." Lucy Madison, Man charged after tossing voter registration forms in Virginia, CBS News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/19/12: FLORIDA: Michel S. Pawlowski: registration fraud
"In documents filed with the Secretary of State, [former St. Augustine Beach Mayor Frank] Charles claims that the father of City Commissioner Undine Pawlowski, 68-year-old Michel S Pawlowski, has fraudulently misrepresented his place of residence at the beach, presumably so that her gentleman friend, Edward Stephen George, can pick up another critical vote." Former mayor claims voter fraud at beach, Historic City News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/17/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: ballot tampering
A judge set a $10,000 cash bail for Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, after after the former East Longmeadow selectman pleaded innocent to a 12-count election fraud indictment. Jack Flynn, Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico "Jack" Villamaino denies 12-count election fraud indictment, The Massachusetts Republican, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/17/12: OHIO: Dominique Atkins, Debbie L. Tingler, Marian Wilson: double voting
"Three Franklin County residents face felony charges of voter fraud after the Board of Elections reported that they had voted more than once in a past election." 3 People Indicted for Felony Vote Fraud, The Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/16/12: FLORIDA: Noucelie Josna, Carline Paul: absentee ballot fraud
"In his lawsuit, Julien alleges that Josna and a woman named Carline Paul gathered several fraudulent absentee ballots from nursing homes and apartments. Josna has not responded to a court-ordered subpoena and a private investigator hired by Julien has not been able to track her down. On Tuesday, Judge Charles Francis reviewed more than 150 absentee ballots from two contested precincts in the race and found six of them to be invalid." Toluse Olorunnipa, Judge wants police to find 'Queen of Absentee Ballots', The Miami Herald, Oct. 16, 2012.
10/15/12: WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: election fraud and falsification of nomination papers
"A former Oshkosh woman has been convicted of two felonies for election fraud and falsification of nomination papers. Yadira Colon was convicted Monday in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and sentenced to 20 days in jail and one year on probation." Former Oskhosh Woman Yadira Colon Convicted of Election Fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 15, 2012.
10/10/12: MICHIGAN: John Scott: election fraud
"Oakland County prosecutors are expected to issue a misdemeanor election fraud warrant today against John Scott, an independent candidate for Oakland County commissioner." Election fraud warrant to be issued against candidate in Oakland County race, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 10, 2012.
10/5/12: FLORIDA: Florida Democrat Party, Florida New Majority Education Fund, National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA: voter registration fraud
"The Florida Department of State on Friday confirmed that it has forwarded complaints about voter registration fraud that have been filed against the Democrats, as well as two other groups — the Florida New Majority Education Fund and the National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA." Gary Fineout, Voter fraud complaint filed against Fla. Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 5, 2012.
10/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams, Brendin Pierre, Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III: forgery
"Ten football players at North Dakota State pleaded guilty Tuesday to misdemeanor election fraud and were sentenced to community service for faking signatures on ballot measure petitions they were hired to collect. Among the players on the nation’s top-ranked Football Championship Subdivision team who pleaded guilty were starters Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams and Brendin Pierre. The other players were Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III." 10 North Dakota State University football players plead guilty in petition fraud case, Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2012.
9/30/12: MARYLAND: deceased voting
"According to their research, voter registration numbers for Montgomery County resident Rufus Harris of Silver Spring, who died in 2002, was used to cast an absentee ballot in the 2008 general election. Prince George’s County resident George T. Zell of Hyattsville, who died in July 2004, cast a vote in the 2004 general election. Records also indicated that Harris became registered as a voter on Sept. 4, 2008, six years after his death. The group also identified two deceased people who were registered to vote after their deaths. James Proctor of Laurel died in 1988 and became registered in 1992, and Virginia Ann Given of Upper Marlboro, who died in 1991, also became registered in 1992. Both names remain on the Maryland rolls today as “inactive” voters, although neither have cast a vote under their new voter registration numbers." Mary Dowling, 67, who currently resides in a nursing home in Timonium, has two voter registration numbers. The latest voting records that are available show Dowling has been voting twice in almost every even-year election since 2002, in both the general and the primary. Ten out of 16 times Dowling voted by absentee ballot. Glynis Kazanjian, Dead people voted and registered to vote, Maryland Reporter, Sept. 30, 2012.
9/29/12: FLORIDA: Nathan Sproul and Strategic Allied Consulting: voter registration fraud
"The firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, has been fired by the Republican National Committee after over 100 hundred allegedly fraudulent signatures appeared in Palm Beach County." Eric Shawn, RNC Fires Consulting Firm After Florida Counties Report Voter Registration Fraud, Fox News, Sept. 29, 2012.
9/28/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
"John Fernandez, 61, of Belleville, was found guilty of election fraud following a two-week trial. The jury found Fernandez guilty of charges of conspiracy (2nd degree), election fraud (2nd degree), absentee ballot fraud (3rd degree), tampering with public records or information (3rd degree), and forgery (4th degree)." Darryl R. Isherwood, Essex man convicted of absentee ballot fraud, Politicker NJ, Sept. 28, 2012.
9/26/12: ARKANSAS: Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III, Leroy Grant: absentee ballot fraud
"Five more Crittenden County residents were arrested and charged Tuesday with using absentee ballots to defraud an election official during three special elections in 2011.....The new charges were filed against Eric Fontain Cox of Earle and four people from West Memphis — Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III and Leroy Grant." 5 charged iwth ballot fraud in Crittenden County, 4 guilty pleas already entered, Baxter Bulletin, Sept. 26, 2012.
9/25/12: ARIZONA: double voting
"Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced Tuesday that nine new cases of suspected voter fraud from the 2008 election are under investigation by the Arizona Attorney General. Bennett said the Cross-State Match program helps states exchange voter-registration history to keep people from voting more than once in any given election." Jim Cross, Arizona ready to crack down on voter fraud, KTAR, Sept. 25, 2012.
9/20/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: non-citizen voting
"The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation filed election misconduct charges Thursday against three Council Bluffs residents, alleging they registered to vote without U.S. citizenship and voted in at least one election... The three people arrested in Iowa, where it's a felony for noncitizens to vote, were 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell and 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, along with Maria Ayon-Fernandez, 40. The Harte-Maxwells have Canadian citizenship, and Ayon-Fernandez is from Mexico. All three were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail on Thursday and released." David Pitt, 3 noncitizens in Iowa charged with voter fraud, Associated Press, Sept. 20, 2012.
9/14/12: INDIANA: Paul Etheridge, Joshua Clemons: vote fraud
"According to the indictment, Paul Etheridge, a candidate in the New Albany Democratic mayoral primary, knowingly forged or falsely made the official endorsement of the ballots of two women in March 2011. The indictment also alleges Etheridge solicited one of the women to complete the ballot, knowing she was ineligible to register to vote or to vote. The indictment also claimed Etheridge delivered the ballots to the women to vote. Separately, Joshua Clemons was indicted on charges he solicited two others to complete an absentee ballot knowing they were ineligible to register to vote or to vote and delivering the ballots to them to vote." New Albany mayoral primary candidate indicted on voter fraud charges, WLKY, Sept. 14, 2012.
9/11/12: HAWAII: double voting
"Hawaii County detectives have opened an investigation into allegations of voter fraud during the 2010 election. Police declined to give details, but the Hawaii County Clerk's Office said in July that an audit of the county’s voter rolls showed four people voted twice in 2010 elections and that between 50 and 60 people were registered more than once." Hawaii County police open 2010 voter fraud investigation, Honolulu Star Advertiser, Sept. 11, 2012.
9/7/12: CALIFORNIA: Ricardo Lopez-Munguia: noncitizen voting
"A Mexican who was deported decades ago for drug trafficking pleaded guilty this week to living illegally in Escondido under a false identity and fraudulently voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, federal authorities said Friday. Ricardo Lopez-Munguia, 45, pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted entry to the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and voter fraud by an illegal alien, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office." Mexican man admits to voter fraud, Escondido, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/7/12: IOWA: Jason Anthony Rawlin, Stacy Rae Brown: election fraud
"A DCI investigation has resulted in two individuals being charged with Election Fraud, a Class D Felony, and Fraudulent Practices, an Aggravated Misdemeanor. Those charged are 37 year old Jason Anthony Rawlin of Indianola, Iowa, and 37 year old Stacy Rae Brown of Kanawha, Iowa." More Election Charges Filed, Iowa Republican, 2012.
9/7/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown: forgery
"Fifteen people were charged Friday with violating North Dakota election law, many of them telling investigators they forged names on petitions they circulated in order to meet quotas and achieve bonus pay...According to the Cass County State’s Attorney’s Office, the individuals charged are: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown." Dave Olson, 15 accused of rampant petition fraud in face of quotas, bonus pay; 10 Bison FB players charged, Inforum, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/5/12: ARKANSAS: Hudson Hallum, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone: absentee ballot fraud; bribery
"Prosecutors said Democratic Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone acknowledged that they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence absentee votes in the Arkansas District 54 primary, runoff and general elections in 2011." Ark. lawmaker pleads guilty to election charge, Fox News 16, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: vote fraud
"The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead reported the statement said formal misdemeanor charges against the others were expected in a day or so. The newspaper reported Tuesday eight North Dakota State University football players and one former player were among the 10 people suspected of fraud in attempts to place two measures on this fall's general election ballot." 10 to face voter fraud charges in N.D., UPI, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: CALIFORNIA: Roderick Wright: vote fraud
"Almost two years after his grand jury indictment on eight felony counts of voter fraud and perjury, state Sen. Roderick Wright has yet to stand trial. The longtime Inglewood Democrat may not get his full day in court before voters decide this fall whether to give him another term in the Legislature." Jean Merl, State senator's trial may begin just before election, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2012.
9/2/12: FLORIDA: Derrick Henry: absentee ballot fraud
"Two weeks ago, the Supervisor of Elections, Ann McFall, announced her office was looking into questionable absentee ballots gathered by Henry's campaign. In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots." Saul Saenz, Derrick Henry campaign responds to voter fraud allegations, News 13, Sept. 2, 2012.
9/1/12: FLORIDA: absentee ballot fraud
"Rep. John Patrick Julien’s official challenge to the results of the District 107 primary race for the Florida House includes allegations of absentee ballot fraud at assisted living facilities and nursing homes." Julien's claim of absentee ballot fraud focuses on nursing homes, ALFs", Miami Herald, Sept. 1, 2012.
8/22/12: RHODE ISLAND: David Cicilline: vote fraud
"Democratic congressional candidate Anthony Gemma on Wednesday accused U.S. Rep. David Cicilline of committing voter fraud." Michelle R. Smith, Gemma Accuses Cicilline of Voter Fraud, Boston Globe, Aug. 22, 2012.
8/15/12: Timothy Noel Zureick: voter registration fraud "A former Ohio University student was in jail in Hamilton County Wednesday, facing multiple felony counts for allegedly forging 22 signatures on a petition for the redistricting amendment to the Ohio Constitution. He faces an additional criminal charge for having allegedly signed his own name with a false address." Jim Phillips, Former OU student charged with forging signatures on redistricting petition, Athens News, Aug. 15, 2012.
8/13/12: FLORIDA: Josef Sever: noncitizen voting
"A Plantation man who authorities said admitted voting in two presidential elections in Broward County though he is not a U.S. citizen has been indicted on federal charges. Federal investigators began looking at Josef Sever, 52, earlier this year when state officials forwarded his name as a possible illegal voter, according to court records. The indictment against Sever was made public on Monday." Paula McMahon, Just in time for primaries, Broward non-citizen indicted for voting, Sun Sentinel, Aug. 13, 2012.
8/11/12: IOWA
"An Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent has been assigned to work full-time with Secretary of State Matt Schultz's office to look into allegations of voter fraud" Agent reassigned to chase voter fraud, Associated Press, Aug. 11, 2012.
8/10/12: FLORIDA: Sergio Robaina: absentee ballot fraud
"Sergio Robaina was charged with two felony counts of voter fraud for allegedly filling out the two ballots in a way that did not match the voters’ intentions. He also faces two counts of violating a county ordinance by possessing more than two absentee ballots belonging to others." Former Hialeah mayor's uncle arrested in absentee-ballot fraud investigation, Miami Herald, Aug. 10, 2012.
8/9/12: MICHIGAN: Paul Seewald, Don Yowchuang: petition fraud
"[F]our former staffers 'were engaged in a blatant attempt to commit forgery and election fraud,' Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said at a news conference in Detroit. 'They copied petitions, submitted petitions falsely signed by circulators and did cut-and-paste jobs that would make an elementary art teacher cringe,' Schuette said." David Bailey, Ex-US lawmaker's aides charged with faking vote petitions, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 2012.
8/7/12: MASSACHUSETTS: voter registration fraud
"The Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Office is looking into possible voter registration fraud in east Longmeadow. The problem came to light when some voters in town say their party affiliations were changed without permission." Secretary of State Galvin Investigates Possible Voter Registration Fraud in East Longmeadow, WGGB ABC40, Aug. 7, 2012.
8/6/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
"The Montgomery County Board of Elections is investigating a large case of possible voter registration fraud, after receiving more than 100 “suspicious” registration cards from a single organization, many that appeared to have false or nonexistent addresses." Jeremy Kelly, Montgomery Co. probes possible voter fraud, Dayton Daily News, Aug. 6, 2012.
8/3/12: CALIFORNIA: nonresident voting
"A Record investigation found McNerney registered and voted in the primary election in Stockton, though his main residence appears to be in Pleasanton." GOP officials file complaint of voter fraud against McNerney, The Record, August 3, 2012.
8/2/12: TEXAS: nonresident voting "Upshur County GOP Chairman Ken Ambrose has filed a new complaint with the Texas attorney general regarding potential voter fraud in the county’s primary election....Ambrose said at least six people participated in early voting for the May 29 Republican Primary with “questionable” addresses." Christina Lane, Upshur County GOP chairman alleges voter fraud, News Journal, August 2, 2012.
8/2/12: FLORIDA: Deisy Penton de Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
"Deisy Penton de Cabrera, 56, was charged with absentee-ballot fraud, a third-degree felony, and two misdemeanor counts of violating a county ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to possess more than two ballots belonging to other voters. Investigators say Cabrera illegally collected at least 31 absentee ballots for the Aug. 14 primary election." Patricia Mazzei, Daniel Chang, Charles Rabin and Christina Veiga, Florida woman is charged with absentee-ballot fraud, McClatchy Newspapers, August 2, 2012.
8/2/12: TEXAS: vote fraud "Political activist Armando Gonzales says in his letter to Kennedy that there was suspect activity both during the early vote and on election day. He claims voters were unduly influenced on their way to the polls and at the voting booth." Complaint Filed Claiming Voter Fraud, Fox, August 2, 2012.
7/30/12: TEXAS: voter intimidation
"Esiquiel Silva joined the Citizens Against Voter Abuse because he said his father was almost victimized. He claims the elderly man was almost forced into a van headed to the polls to vote for a certain candidate. Silva said it all happened while his father was at an adult day care in Brownsville." Daisy Martinez, Keeping a Close Eye on Voter Fraud, Valley Central, July 30, 2012.
7/30/12: FLORIDA: vote fraud
"Authorities are investigating a case of potential voter fraud, right before the August primary. A 71-year-old Hialeah woman said she trusted a woman to fill out her absentee ballot. However, the woman took off with the ballot, and the elderly woman said she has no clue for whom she voted."Alleged voter fraud incident under investigation, WSVN, July 30, 2012.
7/29/12: TEXAS: vote fraud
"According to the amended petition, more than 30 people cast a ballot who were not registered to vote at least 30 days before the election. The petition states the voters registered between May 14-19. The primary was May 29. It also lists several voters who submitted mail-in ballots stating they are disabled. Barrera's petition asks for those ballots to be declared void because those people are not disabled. Others, the petition states, have permanent addresses in Alice but actually live in Corpus Christi." Julie Silva, Jim Wells Election Contest Goes to Court, Caller, July 29, 2012.
7/29/12: FLORIDA: Daisy Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
"Matilde Galindo, who is 75 and illiterate, has no clue who she voted for last week. She said that late in June, Daisy Cabrera, an acquaintance of a distant relative, offered to help her register as a Miami-Dade County voter... Authorities are investigating Cabrera, 56, after finding her in possession of dozens of absentee ballots last week in Hialeah. It is the first case of its kind since a new county ordinance took effect this month that makes it a misdemeanor to possess two or more ballots belonging to someone else." Melissa Sanchez and Enrique Flor, As Hialeah absentee-ballot probe continues, voter regrets accepting help, Miami Herald, July 29, 2012.
7/28/12: HAWAII: absentee ballot fraud
"The FBI has gotten involved in an investigation into allegations of voter fraud on the Big Island, sources told Hawaii News Now Friday...About one week ago, state officials received reports about possible voter fraud on the Big Island, allegations that someone was doctoring absentee ballots, sources said." Keoki Kerr, Sources: State Taps FBI for Help in Voter Fraud Probe, Hawaii News Now, July 28, 2012.
7/27/12: MISSISSIPPI: vote fraud
"A Hinds County jury ordered Tuesday's election after finding the first runoff between Cooper-Stokes and Jackson was tainted by voter fraud." Report: Some votes not certified in Ward 3 City Council election, MSNBC, July 27, 2012.
7/26/12: NEW MEXICO: Luz Vargas, Mary Ann O'Brien: false voting
"Authorities say 56-year-old Luz Vargas registered El Paso, Texas, resident Mary Ann O'Brien to vote in Sunland Park's municipal election in March. They were charged Wednesday with false voting, conspiracy to commit false voting, registration offenses, falsifying election documents and false swearing." 2 more accused of fraud in Sunland Park election, San Francisco Gate, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: VIRGINIA: Bonnie Nicholson: felon voting
"A felon living in Louisa County registered to vote illegally and then cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election after filling out and submitting a voter-registration form she received by mail from the Voter Participation Center, a state senator who prosecuted the case confirmed Wednesday." Mark Bowes, Louisa felon illegally registered after receiving form from Voter Participation Center, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: ARIZONA: deceased voting
"A Pinal County supervisor candidate has withdrawn from the race in the wake of voter-fraud allegations involving a former companion who, records show, has continued to vote by absentee ballot in the five years since her death. His statement made no mention of the scandal unleashed in an anonymous, undated letter sent several weeks ago to the Pinal County Recorder's Office. As recently as this year, the letter alleged, someone had been filling out and mailing in absentee ballots addressed to a woman who died on Feb. 3, 2007. The woman, Sheila Nassar, and Enright lived together at the time of her death." Lindsey Collom, Pinal County supervisor hopeful John Enright quits, The Republic, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: KENTUCKY: Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, Earl Young: vote buying
"Three people from Breathitt County who were involved in a vote buying scheme in a 2010 magistrate's race are expected to be sentenced. Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, and Earl Young all pleaded guilty or were convicted in the case." Three convicted in vote fraud case will be sentenced Thursday, WYMT, July 26, 2012.
7/25/12: KENTUCKY: vote buying
""We believe that drug money did buy votes," Kerry B. Harvey, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, said. He described a stunning vote-buying scheme that includes "very extensive, organized criminal activity, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in many cases that involves drug money." Harvey has led a recent string of federal prosecutions exposing the widespread and accepted practice of vote buying in eastern Kentucky." Eric Shawn, Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky, Fox News, July 25, 2012.
7/23/12: MICHIGAN: vote fraud
"A Macomb Township resident has filed a lawsuit against the county and Macomb Township clerks that challenges the validity of more than 50 signatures on supervisor candidate Janet Dunn's nominating petitions" Macomb Man Alleges Election Fraud, Sues Township, County Clerks, The Patch, July 23, 2012.
7/20/12: ARKANSAS: ballot fraud
"A special prosecutor has been appointed to handle a case involving allegations of voter fraud in Mississippi County." Special prosecutor to handle Ark. vote fraud case, Associated Press, July 20, 2012.
7/20/12: WEST VIRGINIA: absentee ballot fraud
"Lincoln County Commissioner Thomas Ramey is scheduled to plead guilty next month in connection with a vote fraud investigation." Guilty Plea Hearing Set In Vote Fraud Case, Metro News, July 20, 2012.
7/20/12: WISCONSIN: Brice E. Liezen: felon voting
"A 41-year-old Wisconsin Rapids man who was convicted of a felony in 2009 faces a new felony charge after authorities say he voted in the June 5 recall election. Brice E. Liezen is charged with voter registration fraud." Karen Madden, Felon charged with voter fraud, Daily Tribune, July 19, 2012.
7/17/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
"The documents state that in city elections in 2007 and 2009, ballots in favor of challengers were discarded, while ballots that favored incumbents were retained." Olsen Ebright, Melissa Pamer and Jason Kandel, Election Fraud Alleged in Cudahy; 2 Accept Plea Deal, NBC Los Angeles, July 17, 2012.
7/13/12: NEW MEXICO: Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela, Nelson Owens: registration fraud
"Third Judicial District Attorney Amy Orlando announced Friday that voter fraud charges from a Sunland Park election were filed against Texas residents Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela and Santa Teresa, N.M. resident Nelson Owens." 4 more charged in Sunland Park voter fraud case, Associated Press, July 13, 2012.
7/12/12: ARIZONA: nonresident voting
"A former candidate for Mohave County Sheriff was charged on felony counts for claiming to be a resident of the county when he actually was not. Michael David Hays of Flagstaff was charged in Kingman Justice Court on four counts of voter fraud. The first count stated that on March 11, 2010, Hays allegedly made fraudulent statements about his residence on a voter registration form. The second count stated that on Jan. 22, 2011, he allegedly made fraudulent statements on the form." Jim Seckler, Former candidate charged with voter fraud, The Daily News, July 12, 2012.
7/10/12: VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson: felon voting
"A convicted drug felon who pleaded no contest Tuesday to illegally registering to vote in the 2008 general election later withdrew her plea after a judge – concerned about her sobriety – ordered that she immediately be tested for drugs. She failed, testing positive for cocaine." Mark Bowes, Woman in voter fraud case jailed after positive drug screen, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 10, 2012.
7/6/12: VIRGINIA: nonresident voting
"A former Charlottesville City Council candidate will spend 60 days in jail for using a false address on campaign filings... Halfaday pleaded guilty in August 2011 to a felony election fraud count. Prosecutors say he no longer lived at an address he listed on campaign paperwork that he filed for the 2011 election." Voter fraud sends former Charlottesville Council candidate to jail, Associated Press, July 6, 2012.
7/6/12: TEXAS: dead voting
"There are about 325 supercentenarians in the country and 79th District Attorney Armando Barrera finds it hard to believe 18 of them voted in the Brooks County primary in May." Julie Silva, Allegations of voter fraud in Jim Wells, Brooks counties, Corpus Christi Caller, July 7, 2012.
7/3/12: NEW YORK: vote fraud
"Rangel holds a narrow lead of just 802 votes in the Democratic primary for New York's 13th congressional district -- 2,000 absentee and affidavit ballots are set to be counted on Thursday. Both sides are waiting for the final tally in a race marred by accusations from supporters of Rangel's challenger that there was widespread voter fraud and voter suppression aimed at Latino voters." Eric Shawn, Rangel opponent floats possibility of new election amid fraud claims, Fox News, July 3, 2012.
7/3/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
"Two elections are now part of an FBI investigation into allegations of corruption at Cudahy City Hall. Transcripts of wiretaps allegedly show that local officials believed they could control election outcomes." In Cudahy, FBI probes allegations of election fraud, Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2012.
7/2/12: NEW MEXICO: Elias Fresquez: vote buying
"Last month, 4 On Your Side investigative team showed an undercover video of a political operative Elias Fresquez telling our producer who to vote for and offering whiskey as he drove him to an early voting site." 4 On Your Side: State police to investigate Espanola voter fraud, KOB News, July 2, 2012.
6/26/12: OHIO: Robert Gilchrist: illegal voting
"Robert Gilchrist, former director of the Lorain County Community Action Agency and Lorain city official, was secretly indicted on four counts of illegal voting." Kaylee Remington, Gilchrist indicted for voter fraud, The Morning Journal, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: WISCONSIN: missing voter signatures
"Republican recount observers are raising a red flag over votes cast by residents who registered on election day after pages of missing signatures from same-day voters have been discovered throughout the City of Racine." Heather Asiyanbi, More Election Snafus Reported in Racine Recall Election, Caledonia Patch, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: VIRGINIA: Feda Kidd Morton: registration fraud
"A grand jury handed down an indictment against Feda Kidd Morton Monday morning in Fluvanna County Circuit Court, formally accusing her of making a false statement on a voter registration form, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jeffery W. Haislip confirmed." Fluvanna school teacher officially indicted in voter fraud, The Daily Progress, Jun. 25, 2012.
6/20/12: NEW YORK: multiple voting
"The commissioner of the state Department of Education is investigating election fraud accusations at the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk School District... John Allen said he brought up concerns because he saw more than one person vote more than once at the May 15 election, saw students wearing "Vote Yes" T-shirts in the polling place and said the voting procedures were disorganized." RCS vote subject of state fraud probe, Times Union, Jun. 20, 2012.
6/19/12: ARKANSAS: absentee ballot fraud
"Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington has asked a state police investigator to look into suspected absentee ballot fraud in one Region 8 county." Ellington asks Investigator to look into suspected voter fraud, KAITC8 ABC, Jun. 19, 2012.
6/14/12: WISCONSIN: vote fraud
"The Racine County sheriff's department is trying to find out how election related documents ended up in a dumpster. The sheriff's department confirms they are investigating possible voting irregularities at the Cesar Chavez Community Center." Racine County sheriff's department looking into possible voting irregularities, WTMJ, Jun. 14, 2012.
6/14/2012 ARIZONA: nonresident voting, posthumous voting
"The political furor is complicated by allegations of election fraud in a mayoral vote that tallied just 706 ballots. Town Manager Alex Taft announced during this week's council meeting that 168 votes are under investigation. Cowell said she and other incumbents believe "something is not right" because about 300 new voters registered before the election, including some staying on federal lands. "We have proof that there were (three) people who were dead who voted," she added." Dennis Wagner,Quartsite refuses to seat winning mayor, Arizona Republic, June 14, 2012.
6/11/2012 PENNSYLVANIA: Robyn Pugh: nonresident voting
"The Monroe County district attorney's office charged the embattled former Middle Smithfield Township golf course director with several counts of voter fraud Monday. Robyn Pugh was charged with perjury, false swearing in official matters and unlawful voting. She could receive up to 10 years in prison and fines of $20,000. The DA alleged that Pugh registered to vote in Middle Smithfield Township and voted there four times when she was actually living in Stroud Township." DA charges ex-Middle Smithfield golf director Pugh with voter fraud, Pocono Record, June 11, 2012.
6/6/2012 OHIO: Joseph Gallucci: election fraud
"Russo testified that he figured Gallucci's sham candidacy saved him about $50,000 in campaign advertising he didn't have to pay." James F. McCarty, Former Cuyahoga County employee is sentenced to prison for running a sham election in 2006, Plain Dealer, June 6, 2012.
5/25/2012 VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson & Michael Anthony Harris: felon voting
"Sheila J. Peterson, 53, was indicted Monday by a Chesterfield County grand jury on one felony count of making a false statement on an election form on Oct. 3, 2008, according to court records. Last week, Michael Anthony Harris, 50, was arrested in Chesterfield on a similar charge for an offense that occurred on Sept. 26, 2008, records show." Mark Bowes, State voter fraud investigation results in two more arrests in Chesterfield , Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 25, 2012.
5/23/2012 TEXAS: ineligible voting
"A KAMC investigation shows Harvey has reason to question her election. We obtained a copy of the official list of voters filed with the Texas Secretary of State's Office by officials in Crosby County. That list says 187 people voted in the recent election. We also go a copy of the tally sheet used by election officials to count the votes. It lists 199 total votes for mayor... Rowland and Jane King said two of their neighbors were given ballots for council races where they weren't eligible to vote. When they went to City Hall to question the validity of that, nobody could give them an answer." Nick Ochsner,KAMC Investigates: Voter Fraud in the City of Lorenzo, KAMC, May 23, 2012.
5/23/2012 IDAHO: double voting
"A northern Idaho county is investigating possible election-night fraud after one voter may have voted twice in the May 15 primary. Kootenai County told the Coeur d'Alene Press a precinct poll worker didn't notice a voter had already voted absentee before showing up to a polling place and voting in person, too." Associated Press, N. Idaho officials investigating possible voter fraud, KIVI-TV, May 23, 2012.
5/4/2012 CALIFORNIA: Richard Alarcon & Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon: nonresident voting
"Moving swiftly after a judge dismissed its case, the district attorney's office refiled 24 perjury and voter-fraud charges late Thursday afternoon against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife, Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon. The new charges make the same allegations as a case thrown out by Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy on Thursday morning, accusing the Alarcons of lying about living in a house in Panorama City so that the councilman could run for his 7th District office."Perjury, Fraud Charges Refiled Against Richard Alarcon And Wife, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2012.
5/3/2012 WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: forgery
"A former Oshkosh woman will stand trial on two counts of election fraud and two counts of falsifying nomination papers. Forty-four-year-old Yadira Colon was bound over for trial Thursday in Milwaukee County." Woman to Be Tried for Election Fraud, Associated Press, May 3, 2012.
5/2/2012 INDIANA: Douglas Campbell: absentee ballot fraud
"Austin Mayor Douglas Campbell and a city employee surrendered Tuesday to face the felony voter fraud and conspiracy charges. The accusations include that they illegally accepted absentee ballots from voters and that Campbell in one instance filled out a woman's incomplete ballot." Southern Indiana mayor faces voter fraud charges, Associated Press, May 2, 2012.
4/26/2012 WISCONSIN: Austin Thompson: nonresident voting
"Voter registration applications from three men who listed the Glendale Residence Inn as their address is what sparked this investigation…The three including Austin Thompson, who was arrested last year during an occupy protest, are accused of voter fraud by registering and voting even though they lived in a hotel." Milwaukee County DA investigating voter fraud claims, WTMJ4, Apr. 26, 2012.
4/22/2012 VIRGINIA: 400 cases of vote fraud
"As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can't be located. A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3½ years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation." Mark Bowes, Va. Investigates voter fraud , Richmond Times Dispatch, Apr. 22, 2012.
4/14/2012 FLORIDA: 9 individuals charged with various counts of vote fraud "Abra “Tina” Hill Johnson, 43, was charged with 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations. Her husband Ernest Sinclair Johnson, Jr., 45, was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, one count of corruptly influencing voting, and one count of perjury by false written declaration. Jada Woods Williams, 34, Madison County Supervisor of Elections, was charged with 17 counts of neglect of duty and corrupt practices for allowing the distribution of these absentee ballots, contrary to Florida state statute. The following individuals, all residents of Madison, Fla., were arrested for their role in the fraud:
* Judy Ann Crumitie, 51, charged with four counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Laverne V. Haynes, 57, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Ora Bell Rivers, 41, charged with seven counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, three counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Raven Simona Williams, 20, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Shalonda Michaelle Brinson, 36, charged with nine counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of provided a false report to law enforcement authorities." Julie Montanaro and Mike Springer, Madison 9 Attorney Speaks Out, WCTV, Apr. 14, 2012.
4/10/2012 CALIFORNIA: Gary Sabara, Jr.: nonresident voting
"In one of the disallowed ballots, the chamber alleged voter Gary Sabara Jr. actually lived in Buena Park. Frederic Woocher, the chamber's attorney, presented evidence gathered by a private investigator, including Sabara's Facebook page and an Orange County Register article that listed him as a resident of Buena Park." Sam Allen, Vernon council election thrown into chaos by fraud allegations, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 10, 2012.
4/3/2012 INDIANA: forgery
"Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot. The officials are accused of taking part in a scheme to fake signatures and names on the primary petitions needed to run for president. Court papers say the plan was hatched by local Democratic Party officials inside the local party headquarters. Among those charged is the former long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, Butch Morgan, who allegedly ordered the forgeries...The St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration's Democratic board member, Pam Brunette, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton and Democratic volunteer and former board worker Dustin Blythe also face charges." Eric Shawn, 4 Indiana Dems charged with election fraud in 2008 presidential race, Fox News, Apr. 3, 2012.
3/24/2012 OHIO: multiple voting, nonresident voting
"Republican Jon Husted said Friday that an initial review by the Fulton County Board of Elections revealed that an individual appeared to have voted in both northwest Ohio and South Carolina in the 2008 and 2010 general elections. Husted asked Attorney General Mike DeWine to investigate. The county board told Husted the individual has been registered there since 2006. A person with the same name and personal information has also been a registered and active voter in SouthCarolina since 2002." Ohio elections chief asks for voter fraud probe, Associated Press, Mar. 24, 2012
3/22/2012 WISCONSIN: Michael Henderson: vote fraud
"Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that Michael Henderson, of Milwaukee, was convicted of election fraud arising out of the 2008 general Presidential election. Henderson was convicted of Election Fraud - Providing False Information to Election Official, a Class I felony. An additional count of Voting By Disqualified Person was dismissed against Henderson but read-in for the purposes of sentencing." Van Hollen announces voting fraud conviction, Bay View Compass, Mar. 22, 2012.
3/7/2012 WEST VIRGINIA: Jerry Bowman & Donald Whitten: absentee ballot fraud
"Prosecutors say Bowman and former Lincoln County Clerk Donald Whitten, 62, were part of a scheme to steal the May 2010 Democratic primary by stuffing ballot boxes with illegal absentee ballots. Bowman admitted to falsifying more than 100 of the absentee ballot applications and even voting with some of the ballots himself, while Whitten, who also pleaded guilty Wednesday, acknowledged lying to investigators about the plan to try to throw the election." Eric Shawn, Former West Virginia sheriff, county clerk plead guilty to attempting to steal election, Fox News, Mar. 7, 2012.
3/7/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: 4 charged with nonresident voting
"Statesville City Councilman Flake Huggins and three family members have been indicted on voter fraud charges after investigators said the politician had relatives lie about their addresses to vote in his runoff race last fall….According to Iredell and Alexander County District Attorney Sarah Kirkman, the disqualified votes were cast by Huggins' sister Rhonda Williams, her husband, Willie Williams Jr., and son, Christopher Williams." Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and David Vieser, Politician charged in voter fraud case, Charlotte Observer, Mar. 7, 2012
3/6/2012 ALABAMA: Venustian Hernandez-Hernandez: noncitizen voting, voter impersonation
"Records from the Baldwin County Board of Registrars show that Hernandez-Hernandez is registered to vote under the name of Severo Benavidez, the name he used for almost 4 decades after slipping into the United States from his native Mexico in the 1970…Ed Packard, an election official with the Alabama Secretary of State's Office, said Baldwin County's voter rolls have included Severo Benavidez since 1984. Packard said the 62-year-old man voted in the 1996 and 2008 general elections, the 2002 primary election and special elections on a constitutional amendment to overhaul Alabama's tax system in 2003 and to incorporate Perdido Beach as Baldwin County's 14th municipality in 2009." Brendan Kirby, Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly under name of U.S. citizen, records showPress-Register, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/6/2012 NEW MEXICO: Priscilla Morales & Angelica Marquez: nonresident voting
"A former Sunland Park city councilor and a current city employee were charged today in the alleged voter-fraud scheme that has rocked the town. Priscilla Morales, the public works director's secretary, and former Councilor Angelica Marquez each face fourth-degree felony charges of false voting and conspiracy to commit false voting." Heath Haussamen, Two more charged in Sunland Park voter-fraud scheme, N.M. Politics, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/4/2012 NEW MEXICO: Silvia Gomez: nonresident voting
"In the new case, investigators allege that Gomez pushed two El Paso residents to illegally register to vote in Sunland Park and then cast ballots in the mayoral race for Salinas... When the two advised Gomez they were Texas residents, "Silvia Gomez told them it was okay and that they could use Silvia Gomez's address as their residence on the voter registration form," the criminal complaint states." Heath Haussamen, Sunland Park employee arrested on false voting charges, N.M. Politics, Mar. 4, 2012.
2/27/2012 TEXAS: Carlos Medranos: illegal voting
"Carlos Medrano was sentenced to 180 days in county jail, five years probation and assessed a $2,500 fine." Rudolph Bush, Carlos Medrano guilty of one count of illegal voting. Frank Medrano not guilty of perjury chargesDallas News, Feb. 27, 2012.
2/17/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: Erik Ray Jackson: voter impersonation, nonresident voting
"The warrant states that Jackson registered to vote in Montgomery County on Oct. 4, 2011, and used the address of 305 N. Tomlinson St., Candor, the same address as Wayne Holyfield, a state trooper who was elected to the Candor Board of Commissioners last November and has been embroiled in a controversy over firing four of the five officers on the town police force. According to the warrant, Jackson lived at 131 Young Drive, Lexington, at the time of the election and had lived there since Sept. 16, 2011. The warrant also says that Jackson voted in the Candor municipal election on Nov. 8, 2011, and was not a resident of Candor for at least 30 days preceding the election as required by law." Mary Anderson, Jackson charged with voter fraud in Montgomery County, Courier-Tribune, Feb. 17, 2012.
2/16/2012 MASSACHUSETTS: Mark Evangelous: absentee ballot fraud, posthumous voting
"A former candidate for the Marlborough City Council was arraigned yesterday on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex prosecutors said yesterday. Mark Evangelous, 51, of Marlborough, faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.'s office said."Marlborough man accused of voter fraud, Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 2012.
2/13/2012 OHIO: Melissa R. Schilling: forgery
"A Fairfield County woman will serve jail time for providing two false signatures on a liquor-option petition filed with the county Board of Elections last year. County Common Pleas Judge Richard E. Berens sentenced Melissa R. Schilling, 46, of Baltimore, on Friday, after she pleaded guilty to two counts of the fifth-degree felony, a court spokesman said." Mary Beth Lane, Fairfield County woman sentenced for falsifying petition signatures, Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2012.
2/7/2012 WASHINGTON: Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom: noncitizen voting
"A 35-year-old Glenoma woman who emigrated to the United States from Ghana, Africa, is accused of voter fraud in Lewis County Superior Court. Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom is expected on Feb. 16 to enter a plea to one count of providing false information on an application for voter registration." Adam Pearson, Glenoma Woman Charged with Voter Fraud, The Chronicle, Feb. 7, 2012.
2/2/2012 FLORIDA: noncitizen voting
"'I vote every year,' Hinako Dennett told NBC2. The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she's registered to vote. NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn't serve as a juror because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters. Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn't know how she got registered…Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years. 'I know you cannot vote before you become a citizen, so I never tried to do anything like that,' Samuel Lincoln said. He isn't a U.S. citizen either, but the Jamaican national says he doesn't know how he ended up registered to vote. 'It's their mistake, not mine,' said Lincoln. We obtained a copy of his 2007 voter registration application. It's clearly shows he marked U.S. citizen." Andy Pierrotti, NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud, Feb. 2, 2012.
11/28/2011 GEORGIA: 12 officials indicted for vote fraud
"12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot…. The defendants include some workers in the voter registrar's office and some school board members. They are Angela Bryant, April Proctor, Brenda Monds, Debra Denard, Lula Smart, Kechia Harrison, Robert Denard, Sandra Cody, Elizabeth Thomas, Linda Troutman, Latashia Head, and Nancy Denard." Stephen Abel, 12 former officials indicted for voter fraud, WALB, Nov. 28, 2011.
Check out a survey of vote fraud over the past decade.
Article Source; https://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
Democrat State Representative Christina Ayala has been arrested on 19 charges of voting fraud, including: eight misdemeanor counts of fraudulent voting, ten felony counts of primary or enrollment violations and one felony count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Her arraignment is scheduled for October 7. Bridgeport State Rep. Christina Ayala arrested on 19 voting fraud charges , NH Register, September 26, 2014
9/18/14: Ex-Kentucky judge disbarred due to vote fraud
Former Clay County Circuit Judge Cletus R. Maricle has been permanently disbarred following his guilty plea of committing vote fraud. Court documents showed Maricle had used his position to bribe officials, candidates for county offices, defendants in his court, and family members of defendants in his court. Ex-Judge Convicted of Vote Fraud , Lexington Herald-Leader, September 18, 2014.
9/9/14: Georgia launches fraud investigation into voter registration group
A preliminary investigation into the New Georgia Project has revealed significant illegal activities including forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on releases and applications with false or inaccurate information. The New Georgia Project is an offshoot of the organization Third Sector Development, a group founded and led by Democrat GA House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. State launches fraud investigation into voter registration group , Channel Two Action News, September 9, 2014.
8/25/14: Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation
The Fairfax County Electoral Board referred 17 individuals to the DOJ for investigation of possible voter fraud. The individuals seem to have voted in both Fairfax County as well as throughout Maryland in the 2012 elections, and in the case of some individuals, multiple elections over the last decade. Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation , Fairfax County Press Release, August 25, 2014.
8/21/14: Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland
Virginia Voters Alliance drew attention to multiple duplicate voter registrations in Maryland and Virginia. They said there are 14,646 duplicate registrations between Fairfax County, VA and Maryland alone. If a voter is convicted of voter fraud in Maryland, they are still allowed to vote, as it is only a misdemeanor; in Virginia, it can result in a year in prison and $2,500 fine. Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland , Daily Caller, August 21, 2014.
6/27/14: Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race
More than 140 people are alleged to have listed their current address as a mail center in the basement of a Minneapolis, Minn. commercial property while registering to vote. An investigation has been started as to whether or not there is a coordinated effort to register voters using the 419 Cedar Avenue address in Minneapolis. Some of these “voters” may also have been registered without knowing. Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race , Eyewitness 5 ABC News, June 27, 2014.
6/20/14: Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges
An Alabama grand jury indicted the girlfriend of Dothan, AL commissioner Amos Newsome on 23 counts of vote fraud in the campaign to re-elect Newsome last August. The alleged vote fraud scheme includes two additional women – one charged with 20 counts of vote fraud, the other charged with 10. Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges , Dothan First, June 20, 2014.
6/12/14: Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race due to vote fraud
A Texas judge invalidated a city commissioner election as a result of vote fraud. The judge carefully evaluated each of the 44 contested votes and found many of them were cast by people who deliberately and illegally voted under a “home is where the heart is” residency standard – they registered at homes belonging to the fraudulently-elected commissioner’s friends, neighbors, and relatives. Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race , KRGV, June 12, 2014.
6/10/14: NH man pleads guilty to voting illegally
A Massachusetts man pled guilty to illegally voting in both the 2008 and 2012 NH primaries. He was charged with one felony county and two misdemeanor counts of “wrongful voting” under NH law for traveling from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to cast votes in both primaries. He was fined $5,000 and given a suspended prison term of one to three years. Carver man pleads guilty to voting illegally in NH , Taunton Daily Gazette, June 10, 2014.
5/22/14: Former Bolivar city council member sentenced for vote fraud
Former Bolivar, TN City Councilwoman Brenda Woods was sentenced for corralling felons to vote for her in the city’s 2009 municipal elections. Woods transported three felons to the polls to case votes for her. She used this method for her election to city council and her failed mayoral bid. She received a suspended sentence of two years in prison, and has lost her voting rights and her ability to run for elected office. Former Bolivar city council member sentenced , JRN News Channel 5, May 22, 2014.
5/12/14: Nashville election worker fired over double voting
A Tennessee state elections commissioner is questioning whether to certify election results after six people voted twice in a Davidson County election last week. The fraudulent voters cast absentee ballots and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. The election worker has been fired. Nashville election worker fired over double voting , Tennessean, May 12, 2014.
4/21/14: Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud
A California mayoral candidate is alleged to have recruited between 15 and 20 non-voters to cast absentee ballots illegally in April. The formal complaint submitted to the Los Angeles County District Attorney states that candidate Robert Garcia hired a bus to transport the individuals into the district to request absentee ballots. Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud , Hews Media Group, April 21, 2014.
4/21/14: Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud
An illegal immigrant with a Nevada ID was arrested in California on two felony charges for allegedly using a false ID to register to vote and also for casting ballots in NV elections. Authorities confirmed that the woman also voted in both the 2008 and 2010 elections. Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud, KOLO News, April 21, 2014.
5/8/14: Final Report: 117 fraudulent votes found in investigation
A two-year investigation of voter fraud in Iowa uncovered 117 illegally cast votes resulting in six criminal convictions. The crimes included non-citizen voting and felony voting. Final Report: 117 Fraudulent Votes Found in Investigation , The Des Moines Register, May 8, 2014.
5/9/14: Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud
Houston County Sheriff’s Office arrested three women on charges of voter fraud after the narrowly decided election. Police conducted a thorough investigation in which they discovered that the three women created and submitted false ballots in August 2013. Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud , WTVY News, May 9, 2014.
4/23/14: Two more indicted for vote fraud in Hamilton County
A poll worker in Hamilton County, OH is the eighth person to be indicted on charges of illegal voting in 2013. Authorities say that Ellen Elizabeth Duncan submitted an absentee ballot and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. Two More Indicted for Vote Fraud in Hamilton County , WVXU News, April 23, 2014.
5/8/14: Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment
New Jersey authorities arrested mayoral candidate Rigo Rodriguez and his wife on charges that they submitted ballots as votes for people who did not vote in 2010. Prosecutors also stated that Rodriguez instructed campaign workers to lie to authorities investigating the allegations. Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
5/13/14: Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election
Pennsylvania police have charged a man with ballot tampering in Pike County. Myron Cowher allegedly stole 70 ballots and planned to use different colored ink pens so the ballots did not all look the same. Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election , The News Eagle, May 13, 2014.
5/1/14: Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations
The Alabama Supreme Court will reconsider allegations of voter fraud by college students. The students allegedly received illegal alcohol in exchange for their votes. Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations , WIAT News, May 1, 2014.
4/15/14: Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election
Texas officials recently arrested two felons for alleged voter fraud after voting in May 2012. The two men allegedly knew they were not eligible to vote in the election. Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election , Alice Echo News Journal, April 15, 2014.
2/17/14: New York: Noncitizens to Vote in New York?
Under a plan being pushed by de Blasio and the council, noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, would be given city-issued identification cards. . . .GOP State Senator Greg Ball this would open the door to noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote illegally in New York State Elections. N.Y. GOP Sen. says Bill de Blasio plans for illegal voting in New York , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
1/27/14: New Hampshire: Temporary Campaign Staffer Continues to be "Voted" After Moving
We confirmed with the city clerk’s office that a vote under Former Jeanne Shaheen spokesperson Caitlin Legack's name and address was recorded. But Legacki moved out of New Hampshire shortly after the 2008 election (in which she voted) and was in St. Louis on Election Day 2012, working for U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. ." Vote fraud: It, and mistakes, happen, Union Leader, January 27, 2014.
1/27/14: Texas: Hispanics are the Victims of Vote Fraud
In one example listed in the lawsuit, 23 voters who cast a ballot in favor of Rivera were registered to a home on East 6th street in Weslaco. Controversy over voter fraud continues in Weslaco, Action 4 News, January 27, 2014.
1/12/14: Texas: Campaign Workers trade cash, drugs, beer and more for votes
Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes. Texas Vote-Buying Case Casts Glare on Tradition of Election Day Goads, New York Times, January 12, 2014.
12/30/13: New York: Police Prove How Easy Voter Impersonation is next door to the Brennan Center
Investigators posing as dead voters were allowed to cast ballots for this year’s primary and general elections, thanks to antiquated Board of Election registration records and lax oversight by poll workers, authorities said. Undercover DOI agents were able to access voting booths in 61 instances — including 39 dead people, 14 jail birds and eight non-residents. The dead can vote in NYC, New York Post, December 30, 2013.
12/27/13: North Carolina: Fraudlent Election Requires "Do Over"
Voters in the Robeson County town of Pembroke will go to the polls a second time to elect town council members after the State Board of Elections found many “irregularities” in the November election and ordered a new vote. In a written order released Friday, the state board found that problems “occurred to such an extent in this election that they tainted the results of all the Pembroke municipal elections and cast doubt upon their fairness.”Irregularities found in Pembroke election; town to vote anew in 2014, News & Observer, December 27, 2013.
12/18/13: Ohio: More Noncitizen
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution. The alleged crime would be a notable case of voter fraud in a key swing state. By law, only American citizens are allowed the privilege of casting ballots for the nation's leaders. Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state, Fox News, December 18, 2013.
12/13/13: Mississipi: Former Democrat Candidate Caught
Williams registered a woman who is a convicted felon and not eligible to vote. Buckley said Williams also allegedly falsely registered another person who was ineligible to vote.Former congressional candidate, Cobby Williams, arrested on voter fraud charge, Mississippi Business Journal, December 13, 2013.
12/4/13: Minnesota: Mentally Ill Felons in Prison Hospitals Vote
He had voted in a DFL primary election for District 19A, which was won by now state Rep. Clark Johnson of North Mankato. When Olivayes was interviewed by the detective, he allegedly admitted to applying for and casting an absentee ballot early this year. He told the detective that he thought he was casting a vote to decide who would be in charge of the Security Hospital. Suspect cast absentee ballot from Minnesota Security Hospital, Mankato Free Press, December 4, 2013
11/30/13: Kentucky: Drug Dealers Running Fraudlent Elections
There was a time when vote fraud was so pervasive in Clay County that a lot of honest people saw no reason to vote, said Ken Bolin, pastor of Manchester Baptist Church. Decades of poverty and vote-buying led to widespread corruption in Clay County, Hearld Leader, November 30, 2013
11/19/13: Pennsylvania: Pre-Filled out Absentee Ballots
"We did not fill out the applications for the absentee ballots at all, they were already pre-checked out and everything was filled out for us," Rasco said.Plattsburgh absentee ballots under investigation, Channel 3 News, November 19, 2013
10/14/13: Wisconsin: Man Votes 5 Times
A Milwaukee man pleaded guilty Monday to illegally voting five times last year in West Milwaukee, when in fact he did not have residency there. Brown was among 10 people charged in March with a variety of charges related to voter fraud.Milwaukee man pleads guilty to five counts of voter fraud, Journal Sentential, October 14, 2013
9/11/13: New York: Voter Impersonation Ignored by Police
Police watch multiple people attempt to impersonate voters and do nothing. The NYPD later answers that "allegations of voting fraud weren't under the department's purview." Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg, Gotham News, September 11, 2013.
8/1/13: New York: Election Official Abuses Seniors at Home She Manages
Democrat Election Commissioner Frances Knapp was indicted and plead not guilty to 46 felony counts and 48 misdemeanor counts of official misconduct and other charges. The most serious charges against Knapp, however, involve Knapp's involvement in absentee ballot fraud. Knapp allegedly tampered with the computer system sending of absentee ballots. Many of these victimized voters were residents of Maplewood Apartments, a senior living complex in Poughkeepsie managed by Knapp. Eric Shawn, More on NY Vote Fraud Scandal, Apartment Manager Vote Fraud?, RNLA Blog, August 1, 2013 (Post includes multiple links to local sources).
6/17/13: INDIANA: Ballot Fraud: Obama-Clinton primary
“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Dem Official sentenced to prison for ’08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary, Fox News, Jun 17, 2013.
6/14/13: FLORIDA: FEMA Official: Vote Fraud
“FEMA official charged in voter fraud case. Federal Emergency Management Agency official has been arrested in connection with a voter fraud case in St. Johns County, Florida. Michel Pawlowski, 68, was named in a complaint last fall alleging voter fraud. He lives in Maryland. His daughter ran for St. Augustine Beach city commission and won.” FEMA Official Charged in Voter Fraud Case, News 4 Jax, June 14, 2013.
6/5/13: South Dakota: vote fraud, absentee ballots
“The Daily Republic reports that Craig Guymon was arrested on charges of voter fraud. Police say Guymon voted Tuesday morning at the Mitchell Career and Technical Education Academy and later returned an absentee ballot to the Davison Auditor's Office.” Associated Press, South Dakota man arrested and charged with voter fraud, Rapid City Journal, Jun 5, 2013.
5/31/13: FLORIDA: Florida Congressman: Vote Fraud
“Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe. The congressman said he thinks the plot was a “well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout” and that the system is “prone to fraud.” AP, Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe, Fox News, May 31, 2013.
5/6/13: NEW YORK: Scheme to Steal Election Through Dead, Non-Existent and Moved Voting
“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Report: Mount Vernon Group Says Voting Fraud Has Riddled School Elections, Mount Vernon Daily Voice, May 6, 2013.
3/21/13: WISCONSIN: Milwaukee County: Double Voting
“Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote. Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.” Steve Schultze and Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Prosecutors Charge 10 With Voter Fraud, Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Mar. 21, 2013.
2/19/13: OHIO: Melowese Richardson: multiple voting
"Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well...Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election." Eric Shawn, Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation, Fox News, Feb. 19, 2013.
2/18/13: ILLINOIS: absentee ballot fraud, voter intimidation
"Aurora Ivarra says she was intimidated when a town employee wearing a badge came to her door on Sunday and tried to convince her that voting absentee or by mail is illegal... The town of Cicero claims it was sending people door-to-door to investigate alleged absentee voter fraud. The town was concerned about a record number of requests for mail in ballots." Cicero candidates accuse each other of voter fraud, ABC Local, Feb. 18, 2013.
2/14/13: INDIANA: Mike Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
"A North Vernon man who worked on a former Jeffersonville mayor’s re-election campaign in 2011 has agreed to plea guilty to three counts of vote fraud in Jennings County Circuit Court on charges related to a campaign there." Matt Koesters, Ex-campaign worker accepts plea in voter-fraud case, News and Tribune, Feb. 14, 2013.
1/31/13: OHIO: Dominique Atkins: double voting
"A Northeast Side woman was fined $500 today for voting twice in the 2010 general election. Dominique Atkins, 38, of Barnes Drive E., pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of attempted illegal voting." John Futty, Woman fined for voting twice in 2010 election, Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 31, 2013.
1/23/13: WISCONSIN: Leonard K. Brown, Chad Vander Hyden: double voting
"Milwaukee prosecutors are investigating at least two instances of suspected voter fraud from the presidential election in November, court records reveal. In one matter, investigators seek records that might prove Leonard K. Brown voted twice in the November election, once in Milwaukee and again in West Milwaukee. The other suggests a Mukwonago man voted there and in West Allis. That man, Chad Vander Hyden, was arrested on charges of double voting in December after he declined West Allis detectives' invitation to come in and discuss what appeared to be his signature on poll records." Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee prosecutors investigating voter fraud, Journal Sentinel, Jan. 23, 2013.
1/21/13: INDIANA: Michael R. Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
"A North Vernon man and longtime Jennings County Democratic Party worker will plead guilty to three counts of vote fraud, according to terms of a plea agreement filed Friday in Jennings County Circuit Court. Michael R. Marshall, 60, will plead guilty to the three offenses, all Class D felony charges that his attorneys will argue to be reduced to Class A misdemeanor charges before Judge Jon Webster." Bryce Mayer, Plea agreement reached in voter fraud case, Plain Dealer-Sun, Jan. 21, 2013.
1/18/13: WISCONSIN: Karl Reinelt: felon voting
"Karl Reinelt, A 51-year-old felon, was charged in Waukesha County Circuit Court with one count of election fraud after voting in the Nov. 6, 2012 election." Steve Garrison, Pewaukee felon charged with voter fraud, Living Lake County, Jan. 18, 2013.
1/10/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: absentee ballot fraud
"Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico “Jack” Villamaino has been released on his own recognizance after he and his wife Courtney Llewellyn answered to new charges in their voter fraud case...The two are accused in a voter fraud scheme, where in which 280 East Longmeadow residents had their party registration changed from Democratic to unenrolled. 280 applications for absentee ballots were then dropped off at the East Longmeadow Town Clerk’s office." Laura Hutchinson, New Charges for Villamaino and Llewellyn in Voter Fraud Case, WWLP, Jan. 10, 2013.
1/9/13: NORTH CAROLINA: felon voting
"The Scotland County Board of Elections is expected to initiate fraud charges against a felon that officials say voted during in last year’s general election." Mary Katherine Murphy, Board to pursue voter fraud case, Laurinburg Exchange, Jan. 9, 2013.
1/2/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Stephen "Stat" Smith: absentee ballot fraud
"According to a Dec. 20 statement from the US attorney’s office , Smith allegedly submitted fraudulent requests for absentee ballots, then cast those ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Prosecutors say Smith also knowingly delivered absentee ballots to ineligible voters, knowing that their votes in his favor would be fraudulent. Smith was charged with two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. He faces up to two years in prison, and prosecutors will recommend a 6-month sentence, according to his plea agreement, which also requires that he vacate his seat in the Legislature and prohibits him from seeking another elected office for the next five years." Martine Powers, Everett legislator, charged with voter fraud, vacates seat, Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2013.
12/28/12: TENNESSEE: voter impersonation, double voting
"District 4 Election Commissioner Carl Payne reported an incident in which "a father cast an absentee ballot, the son voted in person and then the son changes clothes and returned to vote as his father. We learned of this from a written statement from the poll manager." Among other cases reported by Payne (who was defeated Nov. 6 by Sissie Ferguson): A voter came to cast a ballot, gave a name that was on the poll book, signed the receipt book and was allowed to vote. Another person using the same name came to vote later that day, "and was informed he'd already voted. The second person provided proof of identity," Payne reported. Also, a voter cast a ballot in person at the proper precinct — and then prepared a provisional ballot, including a sworn affidavit, at another precinct." Henry Bailey, Potential voter fraud in DeSoto turned over to investigators, The Commercial Appeal, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/20/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
"A 61-year0old Belleville man was sentenced Thursday to five years in prison for submitting phony absentee ballots while he was working on the 2007 election campaign of state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-29)." Belleville man gets five years for voter fraud, Belleville Patch, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/14/12: OHIO: double voting
"Auglaize County officials are looking into possible voter fraud after discovering one resident may have voted twice in the Nov. 6 election." Amy Kronenberger, POssible voter fraud incident in Auglaize County, The Daily Standard, Dec. 14, 2012.
12/10/12: NEVADA: Mike Hays: non-resident voting
"Court documents indicate that Hays was registered to vote in both Mohave County and Coconino County. He used a campaign worker’s address in Kingman along with that of a shooting range, also in Kingman, when he filled out paperwork to run for sheriff. But prosecutors say he was actually living in Flagstaff and working for the Arizona Department of Corrections in Winslow." Hays pleads guilty to voter fraud, Mohave Valley Daily News, Dec. 10, 2012.
12/3/12: MINNESOTA: William Manzano, Braulio Manzano: noncitizen voting
"Brothers William and Braulio Manzano were each charged Friday, Nov. 30, in Mower County Court. According to the court complaints, the brothers each checked the boxes on their voter applications that indicate they are not U.S. citizens. However, both men continued to fill out their applications and signed the portion that indicates they are citizens who can vote and that providing false information is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine." Matt Peterson, Two Charged with Voter Fraud in Austin, Austin Daily Herald, Dec. 3, 2012.
11/29/12: MINNESOTA: voter impersonation
"A Cottage Grove man told police Nov. 6 that someone had committed voter fraud by signing his name at a polling place, making it impossible for him to vote. The incident was being investigated."Cottage Grove police reports for Nov. 29: Drugs, suspicious activity, voter fraud, burglary, South Washington County Bulletin, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/29/12: OREGON: Deanna Swenson: ballot tampering
"A grand jury has indicted a Clackamas County woman, for alleged ballot tampering. Deanna Swenson was a temp working for Clackamas County Elections." Clackamas Woman Indicted for Voter Fraud, OPB, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/26/12: OHIO: double voting
"Three cases of possible voter fraud are under investigation in Allen County. Ken Terry, director of the Allen County Board of Elections, announced the cases were passed on to the prosecutor's office after three people voted twice in the Nov. 6 election. He told the board during a special meeting at the Allen County Board of Elections on Monday." Sarah Stemen, Three possible cases of election fraud sent to Allen County prosecutor, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/26/12: MINNESOTA: noncitizen voting
"The Mower County Auditor-Treasurer’s office, after its review of local election ballots, discovered three people who may have illegally voted this year. According to Auditor-Treasurer Doug Groh, all three people indicated that they are not citizens on their voter registration forms. However, the three people continued to fill out their forms and also voted." Matt Peterson, Groh: 3 local ballots showed illegal voting, Austin Daily Herald, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/23/12: IOWA: Tehvedin Murgic, Laurie McCarroll, Leonard Blower: noncitizen voting
"A citizen of Bosnia and two Canadian citizens have been charged with election fraud and fraudulent practices for allegedly registering and voting in Iowa without U.S. citizenship. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said it issued a citation to appear in court for 28-year-old Tehvedin Murgic, of Clive. The DCI said he is a citizen of Bosnia and registered and voted on Nov. 2, 2010. Murgic's attorney did not immediately return a call. Arrest warrants were issued for 66-year-old Laurie McCarroll and 53-year-old Leonard Blower, both of Shenandoah. The DCI said they are Canadian citizens who registered and voted in a school election in September 2011. The DCI said it believes they are no longer living in the United States." 3 more election fraud cases filed, Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2012.
11/21/12: OHIO: double voting
"The Lorain County Board of Elections is investigating a Henrietta Township man who cast two ballots during the presidential election. The man, who could potentially face criminal charges for voter fraud, requested an absentee ballot on Oct. 23, and the ballot was returned to the elections board Nov. 3, according to board records. The man then voted at his polling place Nov. 6." Brad Dicken, Henrietta Township man accused of voting twice, The Chronicle Telegram, Nov. 21, 2012.
11/21/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: noncitizen voting
"Two Canadian nationals and a Mexican national were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail. The felony charges allege they registered to vote in Iowa and voted in at least one election. The arrests followed an investigations by an Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent who was assigned to work with Secretary of State Matt Schultz to root out voter fraud Charged are 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell, 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, and 40-year-old Maria Ayon-Fernandez, all of Council Bluffs." Three noncitizens charged with voter fraud in Iowa, Associated Press, Nov. 20, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: Sang Soo Park: improper influence
"A case of election fraud occurred in Flushing when a Korean-American translator helping voters at PS 20 was caught directing them to vote for Democratic candidates. A volunteer poll watcher confirmed the incident. The translator, Sang Soo Park, was expelled from the polling place for breaking the law by telling at least three voters to choose the Democratic slate, according to the observer, attorney Daniel Baek." Peter C. Mastrosimone, Election fraud in Flushing by Korean poll interpreter, Queens Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: voter impersonation
"there were at least two instances of “outright voter fraud” — one in the city of Poughkeepise and another in Pleasant Valley — where a voter went to vote only to find someone had forged that person’s name and voted in their stead." Patricia Doxsey, Dutchess County voting marred by controversy, Daily Freeman, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/6/12: NORTH CAROLINA: Andrew Gail Holmes: double voting
"An individual by the name of Andrew Gail Holmes voted early in Sampson County, North Carolina and then appeared at their precinct today to vote again, according to the staff director of the Sampson County Board of Elections, Donna Mashburn. “We have a gentleman who had early voted,” Mashburn told me this morning, “and went to his precinct to vote. We are aware of it. We will handle the issue at canvassing.”" Bryan Preston, Democrat Double Voter Caught in North Carolina, PJ Tatler, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/6/12: CALIFORNIA: posthumous voting
"According to state records, Carol has voted in the last two presidential elections, despite having passed away...NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001." Stephen Stock, Felipe Escamilla and Kevin Nious, Dead and Still Voting, NBC Bay Area, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/5/12: NORTH CAROLINA: improper influence of mentally disabled
"The father of a mentally handicapped woman claims his daughter and others were “carted off” to a North Carolina polling site last week and “coaxed” into voting for President Obama by workers of the group home where she stays Judson Berger, Group home accused of taking patients to vote for Obama, Fox News, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: PENNSYLVANIA: destruction of voter registrations
"The Community Voters Project is a "non-partisan" lefty organization whose mission is to register people to vote, with a particular emphasis on minorities. In the 2008 election, they had offices in 10 states and registered around 300,000 minority voters. So far, so good. This year, however, it seems they aren't registering everyone who wants to vote. Outside a CVP office in Philadelphia, for example, they shredded and threw away numerous registration forms. A number of these were for people trying to register as a Republican." Mike Flynn, Philly activist group shreds GOP registrations, Breitbart, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: VIRGINIA: improperly influencing the elderly
"The daughter of an Alzheimer’s patient is fighting mad that a Henrico County rehabilitation facility cast her mother’s vote in the face of warnings that the elderly woman “doesn’t know what she is doing.” Janet Benedict, of Louisa, told Watchdog.org she was stunned when the activities director at Lexington Court informed her that 81-year-old Dorene Hagen had voted via absentee ballot." Kenric Ward, VA: Power of attorney doesn't stop Alzheimer's patient from voting, Watchdog, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Joel Santiago-Vazquez, Bruno Paulino, Jose Jimenez, Marcos Acosta: noncitizen voter registration fraud
"FOX Undercover found out something else about Santiago-Vazquez. He's been registered to vote from his home address in Lawrence since 2010. Our investigation shows he's not the only registered voter in Lawrence who is not a citizen. By cross-checking Lawrence voter records with criminal records that included records indicating lack of citizenship, we found three others: * Bruno Paulino is a legal resident detained by immigration authorities earlier this year, has been a registered Lawrence voter since 2009; * Jose Jimenez, a legal resident who faces "potential deportation to the Dominican Republic", according to federal court records, has been a registered Republican in Lawrence since 2010; * and Marcos Acosta, picked up during a recent immigration sweep, has been a registered voter in Lawrence since 2008." Non-citizens registered to vote in Lawrence but officials shrug, Fox Boston, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/3/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
"The listing, "Adolf Hitler, John...666 Heltz...la," puts his supposed residence in Los Angeles. It was part of a batch of roughly 200 voter registrations that election officials say were flagged as possibly fraudulent, forged, or duplicated by the group that collected them, FieldWorks, a private Washington, D.C. based firm. FieldWorks, says it works largely with Democratic candidates, causes and progressive organizations collecting signatures for voter registration or ballot initiatives across the country." Eric Shawn, Hitler Appears on Ohio Voter Registration Form, Fox News, Nov. 4, 2012.
11/2/12: TEXAS: vote harvesting ring, posthumous voting, absentee ballot fraud
"The Texas Secretary of State has asked the state Attorney General to look into a complaint of "vote-harvesting" centered around a San Antonio cemetery." Complaint alleges widespread voter fraud in South Texas, Gonzales Cannon, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: NEVADA: double voting
"A criminal complaint accuses Roxanne Rubin of casting a ballot at an early voting location in Henderson on Oct. 29, then trying to vote again at a polling site in Las Vegas on the same day."Woman arrested in Nevada for alleged voter fraud, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: OREGON: ballot tampering
"A temporary worker with the Clackamas County Elections Division is under investigation over a possible criminal violation of Oregon Election Laws. Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson Jeff Manning confirmed Friday that the state is investigating whether the employee tampered with ballots." Chad Carter, Clackamas Co. elections employee investigated for ballot fraud, KOIN 6, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: SOUTH DAKOTA: vote buying
"The South Dakota GOP accused Democrats on Thursday of trying to buy votes by serving food at a series of get-out-the-vote rallies" SD Republicans accuse Dems of trading chili for votes, Associated Press, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: MULTIPLE STATES: voting machine malfunction
- COLORADO: "How would you feel if you went to vote for Mitt Romney, but it turned out you voted for Barack Obama? That's the concern in Pueblo County as early voters are coming forward, saying electronic voting machines changed their vote. Reports of problems have come from every polling location in Pueblo county." Voting machines changed their vote, some say, KOAA, Nov. 2, 2012.
- OHIO:"Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem. Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up. It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded." Nick Bechtel, Problem found at board of elections, Marion Star, Oct. 31, 2012.
- KANSAS: "Nancy explained that while her husband was casting a vote for Romney, the touchscreen highlighted Obama." Liz Klimas, MORE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES CHANGING ROMNEY VOTES TO OBAMA: WE LOOKED INTO IT AND HERE’S WHAT A VENDOR TOLD US, The Blaze, Oct. 31, 2012.
- NEVADA: "a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead." Voter Machine in Las Vegas Checking Obama, Politichicks, Oct. 25, 2012.
- NORTH CAROLINA: "On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote....One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama." Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy, Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine, Fox News, Oct. 23, 2012. "Faurest Stum says she voted at the Pleasant Garden Town Hall location. Her vote was for Mitt Romney, but the machine cast the vote for Barack Obama." Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy, More voting problems reported in Jamestown, Pleasant Garden, Fox News, Oct. 24, 2012.
"Former Town Councilwoman Linda Lyons faces voter fraud-related charges after allegedly trying to vote twice during last year’s election, according to a Wake County prosecutor." Former Morrisville councilwoman faces voter fraud charge, News Observer, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/30/12: ARIZONA: absentee ballot fraud
"The Pima County Recorders Office is investigating a case of voter fraud. F. Ann Rodriguez said, while verifying signatures, her operators came across a signature that did not match that of two voters, a husband and wife. Her office then contacted the couple, who confirmed they had not even received their ballots in the mail" Voter fraud investigation underway in Pima County, KVOA News, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/29/12: IOWA: absentee ballot fraud
"Muscatine resident Craig White says a Democratic campaign worker somehow gave his 75-year-old mother the impression that it was OK for her to sign his name on an absentee ballot request form when he wasn’t home." Absentee ballot issues reported in 2 Iowa counties, Des Moines Register, Oct. 29, 2012.
10/23/12: LOUISIANA: Douglas Barthlomew Claiborne: voter registration fraud
"Sheriff's deputies booked Douglas "Barthlomew" Claiborne, 30, in Mansfield, into the DeSoto Parish Detention Center on a warrant issued by the 10th Judicial District in Natchitoches Parish. The Times reports the arrest warrant was based on a complaint by the Louisiana Secretary of State's Election and Compliance Unit. It accuses Claiborne of "procuring falsified voter registration applications."DeSoto School Board member booked with voter fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 23, 2012.
10/22/12: ARKANSAS: vote buying
"[former Democrat state Rep. Hudson]Hallum and three others have pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud during the special election that put him in the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2011. A total of nine people have been charged by federal and state authorities in connection with the plan." Eric Shawn, Vodka for votes: Arkansas rep, operatives await sentencing in fraud scheme, Fox News, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: COLORADO: electioneering
"Democratic volunteers offered people free t-shirts and pizza for voting early and posted official Obama campaign signs within 100 feet of the polling location, which is against federal and state election laws." Eli Stokols, Colorado GOP accuses Obama volunteers of electioneering at CSU, Fox KDVR, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: MICHIGAN: absentee ballot fraud
"More than 800 absentee ballots have not made it to voters in Auburn Hills and are missing..." Auburn Hills missing hundreds of absentee ballots, Associated Press, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: FLORIDA: voter suppression
"The Florida Division of elections and state law enforcement officials are investigating "multiple" bogus letters sent to Florida voters to inform them that they have been flagged as suspected illegal, non-citizen voters...The letters appear to be going mostly or entirely to Republicans in Florida." Voter suppression efforts in Fla - against Republicans, Tampa Bay Times, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/19/12: MICHIGAN: voter registration fraud
"Eugenia Huguenin says breast cancer killed her daughter long before a voter registration card with Michele Huguenin's name and supposed signature was filed this year in Palm Beach County." Andy Reid and Barbara Hijek, Dead woman among names on disputed voter forms, Sun Sentinel, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/19/12: VIRGINIA: Colin Small: destruction of voter registration applications, disclosure of voter registration information
"Colin Small, was caught throwing out voter registration forms, Richmond, Va., the Rockingham County sheriff's office confirmed to CBS News." Lucy Madison, Man charged after tossing voter registration forms in Virginia, CBS News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/19/12: FLORIDA: Michel S. Pawlowski: registration fraud
"In documents filed with the Secretary of State, [former St. Augustine Beach Mayor Frank] Charles claims that the father of City Commissioner Undine Pawlowski, 68-year-old Michel S Pawlowski, has fraudulently misrepresented his place of residence at the beach, presumably so that her gentleman friend, Edward Stephen George, can pick up another critical vote." Former mayor claims voter fraud at beach, Historic City News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/17/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: ballot tampering
A judge set a $10,000 cash bail for Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, after after the former East Longmeadow selectman pleaded innocent to a 12-count election fraud indictment. Jack Flynn, Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico "Jack" Villamaino denies 12-count election fraud indictment, The Massachusetts Republican, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/17/12: OHIO: Dominique Atkins, Debbie L. Tingler, Marian Wilson: double voting
"Three Franklin County residents face felony charges of voter fraud after the Board of Elections reported that they had voted more than once in a past election." 3 People Indicted for Felony Vote Fraud, The Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/16/12: FLORIDA: Noucelie Josna, Carline Paul: absentee ballot fraud
"In his lawsuit, Julien alleges that Josna and a woman named Carline Paul gathered several fraudulent absentee ballots from nursing homes and apartments. Josna has not responded to a court-ordered subpoena and a private investigator hired by Julien has not been able to track her down. On Tuesday, Judge Charles Francis reviewed more than 150 absentee ballots from two contested precincts in the race and found six of them to be invalid." Toluse Olorunnipa, Judge wants police to find 'Queen of Absentee Ballots', The Miami Herald, Oct. 16, 2012.
10/15/12: WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: election fraud and falsification of nomination papers
"A former Oshkosh woman has been convicted of two felonies for election fraud and falsification of nomination papers. Yadira Colon was convicted Monday in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and sentenced to 20 days in jail and one year on probation." Former Oskhosh Woman Yadira Colon Convicted of Election Fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 15, 2012.
10/10/12: MICHIGAN: John Scott: election fraud
"Oakland County prosecutors are expected to issue a misdemeanor election fraud warrant today against John Scott, an independent candidate for Oakland County commissioner." Election fraud warrant to be issued against candidate in Oakland County race, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 10, 2012.
10/5/12: FLORIDA: Florida Democrat Party, Florida New Majority Education Fund, National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA: voter registration fraud
"The Florida Department of State on Friday confirmed that it has forwarded complaints about voter registration fraud that have been filed against the Democrats, as well as two other groups — the Florida New Majority Education Fund and the National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA." Gary Fineout, Voter fraud complaint filed against Fla. Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 5, 2012.
10/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams, Brendin Pierre, Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III: forgery
"Ten football players at North Dakota State pleaded guilty Tuesday to misdemeanor election fraud and were sentenced to community service for faking signatures on ballot measure petitions they were hired to collect. Among the players on the nation’s top-ranked Football Championship Subdivision team who pleaded guilty were starters Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams and Brendin Pierre. The other players were Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III." 10 North Dakota State University football players plead guilty in petition fraud case, Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2012.
9/30/12: MARYLAND: deceased voting
"According to their research, voter registration numbers for Montgomery County resident Rufus Harris of Silver Spring, who died in 2002, was used to cast an absentee ballot in the 2008 general election. Prince George’s County resident George T. Zell of Hyattsville, who died in July 2004, cast a vote in the 2004 general election. Records also indicated that Harris became registered as a voter on Sept. 4, 2008, six years after his death. The group also identified two deceased people who were registered to vote after their deaths. James Proctor of Laurel died in 1988 and became registered in 1992, and Virginia Ann Given of Upper Marlboro, who died in 1991, also became registered in 1992. Both names remain on the Maryland rolls today as “inactive” voters, although neither have cast a vote under their new voter registration numbers." Mary Dowling, 67, who currently resides in a nursing home in Timonium, has two voter registration numbers. The latest voting records that are available show Dowling has been voting twice in almost every even-year election since 2002, in both the general and the primary. Ten out of 16 times Dowling voted by absentee ballot. Glynis Kazanjian, Dead people voted and registered to vote, Maryland Reporter, Sept. 30, 2012.
9/29/12: FLORIDA: Nathan Sproul and Strategic Allied Consulting: voter registration fraud
"The firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, has been fired by the Republican National Committee after over 100 hundred allegedly fraudulent signatures appeared in Palm Beach County." Eric Shawn, RNC Fires Consulting Firm After Florida Counties Report Voter Registration Fraud, Fox News, Sept. 29, 2012.
9/28/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
"John Fernandez, 61, of Belleville, was found guilty of election fraud following a two-week trial. The jury found Fernandez guilty of charges of conspiracy (2nd degree), election fraud (2nd degree), absentee ballot fraud (3rd degree), tampering with public records or information (3rd degree), and forgery (4th degree)." Darryl R. Isherwood, Essex man convicted of absentee ballot fraud, Politicker NJ, Sept. 28, 2012.
9/26/12: ARKANSAS: Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III, Leroy Grant: absentee ballot fraud
"Five more Crittenden County residents were arrested and charged Tuesday with using absentee ballots to defraud an election official during three special elections in 2011.....The new charges were filed against Eric Fontain Cox of Earle and four people from West Memphis — Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III and Leroy Grant." 5 charged iwth ballot fraud in Crittenden County, 4 guilty pleas already entered, Baxter Bulletin, Sept. 26, 2012.
9/25/12: ARIZONA: double voting
"Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced Tuesday that nine new cases of suspected voter fraud from the 2008 election are under investigation by the Arizona Attorney General. Bennett said the Cross-State Match program helps states exchange voter-registration history to keep people from voting more than once in any given election." Jim Cross, Arizona ready to crack down on voter fraud, KTAR, Sept. 25, 2012.
9/20/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: non-citizen voting
"The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation filed election misconduct charges Thursday against three Council Bluffs residents, alleging they registered to vote without U.S. citizenship and voted in at least one election... The three people arrested in Iowa, where it's a felony for noncitizens to vote, were 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell and 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, along with Maria Ayon-Fernandez, 40. The Harte-Maxwells have Canadian citizenship, and Ayon-Fernandez is from Mexico. All three were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail on Thursday and released." David Pitt, 3 noncitizens in Iowa charged with voter fraud, Associated Press, Sept. 20, 2012.
9/14/12: INDIANA: Paul Etheridge, Joshua Clemons: vote fraud
"According to the indictment, Paul Etheridge, a candidate in the New Albany Democratic mayoral primary, knowingly forged or falsely made the official endorsement of the ballots of two women in March 2011. The indictment also alleges Etheridge solicited one of the women to complete the ballot, knowing she was ineligible to register to vote or to vote. The indictment also claimed Etheridge delivered the ballots to the women to vote. Separately, Joshua Clemons was indicted on charges he solicited two others to complete an absentee ballot knowing they were ineligible to register to vote or to vote and delivering the ballots to them to vote." New Albany mayoral primary candidate indicted on voter fraud charges, WLKY, Sept. 14, 2012.
9/11/12: HAWAII: double voting
"Hawaii County detectives have opened an investigation into allegations of voter fraud during the 2010 election. Police declined to give details, but the Hawaii County Clerk's Office said in July that an audit of the county’s voter rolls showed four people voted twice in 2010 elections and that between 50 and 60 people were registered more than once." Hawaii County police open 2010 voter fraud investigation, Honolulu Star Advertiser, Sept. 11, 2012.
9/7/12: CALIFORNIA: Ricardo Lopez-Munguia: noncitizen voting
"A Mexican who was deported decades ago for drug trafficking pleaded guilty this week to living illegally in Escondido under a false identity and fraudulently voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, federal authorities said Friday. Ricardo Lopez-Munguia, 45, pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted entry to the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and voter fraud by an illegal alien, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office." Mexican man admits to voter fraud, Escondido, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/7/12: IOWA: Jason Anthony Rawlin, Stacy Rae Brown: election fraud
"A DCI investigation has resulted in two individuals being charged with Election Fraud, a Class D Felony, and Fraudulent Practices, an Aggravated Misdemeanor. Those charged are 37 year old Jason Anthony Rawlin of Indianola, Iowa, and 37 year old Stacy Rae Brown of Kanawha, Iowa." More Election Charges Filed, Iowa Republican, 2012.
9/7/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown: forgery
"Fifteen people were charged Friday with violating North Dakota election law, many of them telling investigators they forged names on petitions they circulated in order to meet quotas and achieve bonus pay...According to the Cass County State’s Attorney’s Office, the individuals charged are: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown." Dave Olson, 15 accused of rampant petition fraud in face of quotas, bonus pay; 10 Bison FB players charged, Inforum, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/5/12: ARKANSAS: Hudson Hallum, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone: absentee ballot fraud; bribery
"Prosecutors said Democratic Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone acknowledged that they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence absentee votes in the Arkansas District 54 primary, runoff and general elections in 2011." Ark. lawmaker pleads guilty to election charge, Fox News 16, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: vote fraud
"The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead reported the statement said formal misdemeanor charges against the others were expected in a day or so. The newspaper reported Tuesday eight North Dakota State University football players and one former player were among the 10 people suspected of fraud in attempts to place two measures on this fall's general election ballot." 10 to face voter fraud charges in N.D., UPI, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: CALIFORNIA: Roderick Wright: vote fraud
"Almost two years after his grand jury indictment on eight felony counts of voter fraud and perjury, state Sen. Roderick Wright has yet to stand trial. The longtime Inglewood Democrat may not get his full day in court before voters decide this fall whether to give him another term in the Legislature." Jean Merl, State senator's trial may begin just before election, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2012.
9/2/12: FLORIDA: Derrick Henry: absentee ballot fraud
"Two weeks ago, the Supervisor of Elections, Ann McFall, announced her office was looking into questionable absentee ballots gathered by Henry's campaign. In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots." Saul Saenz, Derrick Henry campaign responds to voter fraud allegations, News 13, Sept. 2, 2012.
9/1/12: FLORIDA: absentee ballot fraud
"Rep. John Patrick Julien’s official challenge to the results of the District 107 primary race for the Florida House includes allegations of absentee ballot fraud at assisted living facilities and nursing homes." Julien's claim of absentee ballot fraud focuses on nursing homes, ALFs", Miami Herald, Sept. 1, 2012.
8/22/12: RHODE ISLAND: David Cicilline: vote fraud
"Democratic congressional candidate Anthony Gemma on Wednesday accused U.S. Rep. David Cicilline of committing voter fraud." Michelle R. Smith, Gemma Accuses Cicilline of Voter Fraud, Boston Globe, Aug. 22, 2012.
8/15/12: Timothy Noel Zureick: voter registration fraud "A former Ohio University student was in jail in Hamilton County Wednesday, facing multiple felony counts for allegedly forging 22 signatures on a petition for the redistricting amendment to the Ohio Constitution. He faces an additional criminal charge for having allegedly signed his own name with a false address." Jim Phillips, Former OU student charged with forging signatures on redistricting petition, Athens News, Aug. 15, 2012.
8/13/12: FLORIDA: Josef Sever: noncitizen voting
"A Plantation man who authorities said admitted voting in two presidential elections in Broward County though he is not a U.S. citizen has been indicted on federal charges. Federal investigators began looking at Josef Sever, 52, earlier this year when state officials forwarded his name as a possible illegal voter, according to court records. The indictment against Sever was made public on Monday." Paula McMahon, Just in time for primaries, Broward non-citizen indicted for voting, Sun Sentinel, Aug. 13, 2012.
8/11/12: IOWA
"An Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent has been assigned to work full-time with Secretary of State Matt Schultz's office to look into allegations of voter fraud" Agent reassigned to chase voter fraud, Associated Press, Aug. 11, 2012.
8/10/12: FLORIDA: Sergio Robaina: absentee ballot fraud
"Sergio Robaina was charged with two felony counts of voter fraud for allegedly filling out the two ballots in a way that did not match the voters’ intentions. He also faces two counts of violating a county ordinance by possessing more than two absentee ballots belonging to others." Former Hialeah mayor's uncle arrested in absentee-ballot fraud investigation, Miami Herald, Aug. 10, 2012.
8/9/12: MICHIGAN: Paul Seewald, Don Yowchuang: petition fraud
"[F]our former staffers 'were engaged in a blatant attempt to commit forgery and election fraud,' Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said at a news conference in Detroit. 'They copied petitions, submitted petitions falsely signed by circulators and did cut-and-paste jobs that would make an elementary art teacher cringe,' Schuette said." David Bailey, Ex-US lawmaker's aides charged with faking vote petitions, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 2012.
8/7/12: MASSACHUSETTS: voter registration fraud
"The Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Office is looking into possible voter registration fraud in east Longmeadow. The problem came to light when some voters in town say their party affiliations were changed without permission." Secretary of State Galvin Investigates Possible Voter Registration Fraud in East Longmeadow, WGGB ABC40, Aug. 7, 2012.
8/6/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
"The Montgomery County Board of Elections is investigating a large case of possible voter registration fraud, after receiving more than 100 “suspicious” registration cards from a single organization, many that appeared to have false or nonexistent addresses." Jeremy Kelly, Montgomery Co. probes possible voter fraud, Dayton Daily News, Aug. 6, 2012.
8/3/12: CALIFORNIA: nonresident voting
"A Record investigation found McNerney registered and voted in the primary election in Stockton, though his main residence appears to be in Pleasanton." GOP officials file complaint of voter fraud against McNerney, The Record, August 3, 2012.
8/2/12: TEXAS: nonresident voting "Upshur County GOP Chairman Ken Ambrose has filed a new complaint with the Texas attorney general regarding potential voter fraud in the county’s primary election....Ambrose said at least six people participated in early voting for the May 29 Republican Primary with “questionable” addresses." Christina Lane, Upshur County GOP chairman alleges voter fraud, News Journal, August 2, 2012.
8/2/12: FLORIDA: Deisy Penton de Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
"Deisy Penton de Cabrera, 56, was charged with absentee-ballot fraud, a third-degree felony, and two misdemeanor counts of violating a county ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to possess more than two ballots belonging to other voters. Investigators say Cabrera illegally collected at least 31 absentee ballots for the Aug. 14 primary election." Patricia Mazzei, Daniel Chang, Charles Rabin and Christina Veiga, Florida woman is charged with absentee-ballot fraud, McClatchy Newspapers, August 2, 2012.
8/2/12: TEXAS: vote fraud "Political activist Armando Gonzales says in his letter to Kennedy that there was suspect activity both during the early vote and on election day. He claims voters were unduly influenced on their way to the polls and at the voting booth." Complaint Filed Claiming Voter Fraud, Fox, August 2, 2012.
7/30/12: TEXAS: voter intimidation
"Esiquiel Silva joined the Citizens Against Voter Abuse because he said his father was almost victimized. He claims the elderly man was almost forced into a van headed to the polls to vote for a certain candidate. Silva said it all happened while his father was at an adult day care in Brownsville." Daisy Martinez, Keeping a Close Eye on Voter Fraud, Valley Central, July 30, 2012.
7/30/12: FLORIDA: vote fraud
"Authorities are investigating a case of potential voter fraud, right before the August primary. A 71-year-old Hialeah woman said she trusted a woman to fill out her absentee ballot. However, the woman took off with the ballot, and the elderly woman said she has no clue for whom she voted."Alleged voter fraud incident under investigation, WSVN, July 30, 2012.
7/29/12: TEXAS: vote fraud
"According to the amended petition, more than 30 people cast a ballot who were not registered to vote at least 30 days before the election. The petition states the voters registered between May 14-19. The primary was May 29. It also lists several voters who submitted mail-in ballots stating they are disabled. Barrera's petition asks for those ballots to be declared void because those people are not disabled. Others, the petition states, have permanent addresses in Alice but actually live in Corpus Christi." Julie Silva, Jim Wells Election Contest Goes to Court, Caller, July 29, 2012.
7/29/12: FLORIDA: Daisy Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
"Matilde Galindo, who is 75 and illiterate, has no clue who she voted for last week. She said that late in June, Daisy Cabrera, an acquaintance of a distant relative, offered to help her register as a Miami-Dade County voter... Authorities are investigating Cabrera, 56, after finding her in possession of dozens of absentee ballots last week in Hialeah. It is the first case of its kind since a new county ordinance took effect this month that makes it a misdemeanor to possess two or more ballots belonging to someone else." Melissa Sanchez and Enrique Flor, As Hialeah absentee-ballot probe continues, voter regrets accepting help, Miami Herald, July 29, 2012.
7/28/12: HAWAII: absentee ballot fraud
"The FBI has gotten involved in an investigation into allegations of voter fraud on the Big Island, sources told Hawaii News Now Friday...About one week ago, state officials received reports about possible voter fraud on the Big Island, allegations that someone was doctoring absentee ballots, sources said." Keoki Kerr, Sources: State Taps FBI for Help in Voter Fraud Probe, Hawaii News Now, July 28, 2012.
7/27/12: MISSISSIPPI: vote fraud
"A Hinds County jury ordered Tuesday's election after finding the first runoff between Cooper-Stokes and Jackson was tainted by voter fraud." Report: Some votes not certified in Ward 3 City Council election, MSNBC, July 27, 2012.
7/26/12: NEW MEXICO: Luz Vargas, Mary Ann O'Brien: false voting
"Authorities say 56-year-old Luz Vargas registered El Paso, Texas, resident Mary Ann O'Brien to vote in Sunland Park's municipal election in March. They were charged Wednesday with false voting, conspiracy to commit false voting, registration offenses, falsifying election documents and false swearing." 2 more accused of fraud in Sunland Park election, San Francisco Gate, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: VIRGINIA: Bonnie Nicholson: felon voting
"A felon living in Louisa County registered to vote illegally and then cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election after filling out and submitting a voter-registration form she received by mail from the Voter Participation Center, a state senator who prosecuted the case confirmed Wednesday." Mark Bowes, Louisa felon illegally registered after receiving form from Voter Participation Center, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: ARIZONA: deceased voting
"A Pinal County supervisor candidate has withdrawn from the race in the wake of voter-fraud allegations involving a former companion who, records show, has continued to vote by absentee ballot in the five years since her death. His statement made no mention of the scandal unleashed in an anonymous, undated letter sent several weeks ago to the Pinal County Recorder's Office. As recently as this year, the letter alleged, someone had been filling out and mailing in absentee ballots addressed to a woman who died on Feb. 3, 2007. The woman, Sheila Nassar, and Enright lived together at the time of her death." Lindsey Collom, Pinal County supervisor hopeful John Enright quits, The Republic, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: KENTUCKY: Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, Earl Young: vote buying
"Three people from Breathitt County who were involved in a vote buying scheme in a 2010 magistrate's race are expected to be sentenced. Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, and Earl Young all pleaded guilty or were convicted in the case." Three convicted in vote fraud case will be sentenced Thursday, WYMT, July 26, 2012.
7/25/12: KENTUCKY: vote buying
""We believe that drug money did buy votes," Kerry B. Harvey, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, said. He described a stunning vote-buying scheme that includes "very extensive, organized criminal activity, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in many cases that involves drug money." Harvey has led a recent string of federal prosecutions exposing the widespread and accepted practice of vote buying in eastern Kentucky." Eric Shawn, Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky, Fox News, July 25, 2012.
7/23/12: MICHIGAN: vote fraud
"A Macomb Township resident has filed a lawsuit against the county and Macomb Township clerks that challenges the validity of more than 50 signatures on supervisor candidate Janet Dunn's nominating petitions" Macomb Man Alleges Election Fraud, Sues Township, County Clerks, The Patch, July 23, 2012.
7/20/12: ARKANSAS: ballot fraud
"A special prosecutor has been appointed to handle a case involving allegations of voter fraud in Mississippi County." Special prosecutor to handle Ark. vote fraud case, Associated Press, July 20, 2012.
7/20/12: WEST VIRGINIA: absentee ballot fraud
"Lincoln County Commissioner Thomas Ramey is scheduled to plead guilty next month in connection with a vote fraud investigation." Guilty Plea Hearing Set In Vote Fraud Case, Metro News, July 20, 2012.
7/20/12: WISCONSIN: Brice E. Liezen: felon voting
"A 41-year-old Wisconsin Rapids man who was convicted of a felony in 2009 faces a new felony charge after authorities say he voted in the June 5 recall election. Brice E. Liezen is charged with voter registration fraud." Karen Madden, Felon charged with voter fraud, Daily Tribune, July 19, 2012.
7/17/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
"The documents state that in city elections in 2007 and 2009, ballots in favor of challengers were discarded, while ballots that favored incumbents were retained." Olsen Ebright, Melissa Pamer and Jason Kandel, Election Fraud Alleged in Cudahy; 2 Accept Plea Deal, NBC Los Angeles, July 17, 2012.
7/13/12: NEW MEXICO: Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela, Nelson Owens: registration fraud
"Third Judicial District Attorney Amy Orlando announced Friday that voter fraud charges from a Sunland Park election were filed against Texas residents Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela and Santa Teresa, N.M. resident Nelson Owens." 4 more charged in Sunland Park voter fraud case, Associated Press, July 13, 2012.
7/12/12: ARIZONA: nonresident voting
"A former candidate for Mohave County Sheriff was charged on felony counts for claiming to be a resident of the county when he actually was not. Michael David Hays of Flagstaff was charged in Kingman Justice Court on four counts of voter fraud. The first count stated that on March 11, 2010, Hays allegedly made fraudulent statements about his residence on a voter registration form. The second count stated that on Jan. 22, 2011, he allegedly made fraudulent statements on the form." Jim Seckler, Former candidate charged with voter fraud, The Daily News, July 12, 2012.
7/10/12: VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson: felon voting
"A convicted drug felon who pleaded no contest Tuesday to illegally registering to vote in the 2008 general election later withdrew her plea after a judge – concerned about her sobriety – ordered that she immediately be tested for drugs. She failed, testing positive for cocaine." Mark Bowes, Woman in voter fraud case jailed after positive drug screen, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 10, 2012.
7/6/12: VIRGINIA: nonresident voting
"A former Charlottesville City Council candidate will spend 60 days in jail for using a false address on campaign filings... Halfaday pleaded guilty in August 2011 to a felony election fraud count. Prosecutors say he no longer lived at an address he listed on campaign paperwork that he filed for the 2011 election." Voter fraud sends former Charlottesville Council candidate to jail, Associated Press, July 6, 2012.
7/6/12: TEXAS: dead voting
"There are about 325 supercentenarians in the country and 79th District Attorney Armando Barrera finds it hard to believe 18 of them voted in the Brooks County primary in May." Julie Silva, Allegations of voter fraud in Jim Wells, Brooks counties, Corpus Christi Caller, July 7, 2012.
7/3/12: NEW YORK: vote fraud
"Rangel holds a narrow lead of just 802 votes in the Democratic primary for New York's 13th congressional district -- 2,000 absentee and affidavit ballots are set to be counted on Thursday. Both sides are waiting for the final tally in a race marred by accusations from supporters of Rangel's challenger that there was widespread voter fraud and voter suppression aimed at Latino voters." Eric Shawn, Rangel opponent floats possibility of new election amid fraud claims, Fox News, July 3, 2012.
7/3/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
"Two elections are now part of an FBI investigation into allegations of corruption at Cudahy City Hall. Transcripts of wiretaps allegedly show that local officials believed they could control election outcomes." In Cudahy, FBI probes allegations of election fraud, Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2012.
7/2/12: NEW MEXICO: Elias Fresquez: vote buying
"Last month, 4 On Your Side investigative team showed an undercover video of a political operative Elias Fresquez telling our producer who to vote for and offering whiskey as he drove him to an early voting site." 4 On Your Side: State police to investigate Espanola voter fraud, KOB News, July 2, 2012.
6/26/12: OHIO: Robert Gilchrist: illegal voting
"Robert Gilchrist, former director of the Lorain County Community Action Agency and Lorain city official, was secretly indicted on four counts of illegal voting." Kaylee Remington, Gilchrist indicted for voter fraud, The Morning Journal, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: WISCONSIN: missing voter signatures
"Republican recount observers are raising a red flag over votes cast by residents who registered on election day after pages of missing signatures from same-day voters have been discovered throughout the City of Racine." Heather Asiyanbi, More Election Snafus Reported in Racine Recall Election, Caledonia Patch, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: VIRGINIA: Feda Kidd Morton: registration fraud
"A grand jury handed down an indictment against Feda Kidd Morton Monday morning in Fluvanna County Circuit Court, formally accusing her of making a false statement on a voter registration form, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jeffery W. Haislip confirmed." Fluvanna school teacher officially indicted in voter fraud, The Daily Progress, Jun. 25, 2012.
6/20/12: NEW YORK: multiple voting
"The commissioner of the state Department of Education is investigating election fraud accusations at the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk School District... John Allen said he brought up concerns because he saw more than one person vote more than once at the May 15 election, saw students wearing "Vote Yes" T-shirts in the polling place and said the voting procedures were disorganized." RCS vote subject of state fraud probe, Times Union, Jun. 20, 2012.
6/19/12: ARKANSAS: absentee ballot fraud
"Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington has asked a state police investigator to look into suspected absentee ballot fraud in one Region 8 county." Ellington asks Investigator to look into suspected voter fraud, KAITC8 ABC, Jun. 19, 2012.
6/14/12: WISCONSIN: vote fraud
"The Racine County sheriff's department is trying to find out how election related documents ended up in a dumpster. The sheriff's department confirms they are investigating possible voting irregularities at the Cesar Chavez Community Center." Racine County sheriff's department looking into possible voting irregularities, WTMJ, Jun. 14, 2012.
6/14/2012 ARIZONA: nonresident voting, posthumous voting
"The political furor is complicated by allegations of election fraud in a mayoral vote that tallied just 706 ballots. Town Manager Alex Taft announced during this week's council meeting that 168 votes are under investigation. Cowell said she and other incumbents believe "something is not right" because about 300 new voters registered before the election, including some staying on federal lands. "We have proof that there were (three) people who were dead who voted," she added." Dennis Wagner,Quartsite refuses to seat winning mayor, Arizona Republic, June 14, 2012.
6/11/2012 PENNSYLVANIA: Robyn Pugh: nonresident voting
"The Monroe County district attorney's office charged the embattled former Middle Smithfield Township golf course director with several counts of voter fraud Monday. Robyn Pugh was charged with perjury, false swearing in official matters and unlawful voting. She could receive up to 10 years in prison and fines of $20,000. The DA alleged that Pugh registered to vote in Middle Smithfield Township and voted there four times when she was actually living in Stroud Township." DA charges ex-Middle Smithfield golf director Pugh with voter fraud, Pocono Record, June 11, 2012.
6/6/2012 OHIO: Joseph Gallucci: election fraud
"Russo testified that he figured Gallucci's sham candidacy saved him about $50,000 in campaign advertising he didn't have to pay." James F. McCarty, Former Cuyahoga County employee is sentenced to prison for running a sham election in 2006, Plain Dealer, June 6, 2012.
5/25/2012 VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson & Michael Anthony Harris: felon voting
"Sheila J. Peterson, 53, was indicted Monday by a Chesterfield County grand jury on one felony count of making a false statement on an election form on Oct. 3, 2008, according to court records. Last week, Michael Anthony Harris, 50, was arrested in Chesterfield on a similar charge for an offense that occurred on Sept. 26, 2008, records show." Mark Bowes, State voter fraud investigation results in two more arrests in Chesterfield , Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 25, 2012.
5/23/2012 TEXAS: ineligible voting
"A KAMC investigation shows Harvey has reason to question her election. We obtained a copy of the official list of voters filed with the Texas Secretary of State's Office by officials in Crosby County. That list says 187 people voted in the recent election. We also go a copy of the tally sheet used by election officials to count the votes. It lists 199 total votes for mayor... Rowland and Jane King said two of their neighbors were given ballots for council races where they weren't eligible to vote. When they went to City Hall to question the validity of that, nobody could give them an answer." Nick Ochsner,KAMC Investigates: Voter Fraud in the City of Lorenzo, KAMC, May 23, 2012.
5/23/2012 IDAHO: double voting
"A northern Idaho county is investigating possible election-night fraud after one voter may have voted twice in the May 15 primary. Kootenai County told the Coeur d'Alene Press a precinct poll worker didn't notice a voter had already voted absentee before showing up to a polling place and voting in person, too." Associated Press, N. Idaho officials investigating possible voter fraud, KIVI-TV, May 23, 2012.
5/4/2012 CALIFORNIA: Richard Alarcon & Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon: nonresident voting
"Moving swiftly after a judge dismissed its case, the district attorney's office refiled 24 perjury and voter-fraud charges late Thursday afternoon against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife, Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon. The new charges make the same allegations as a case thrown out by Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy on Thursday morning, accusing the Alarcons of lying about living in a house in Panorama City so that the councilman could run for his 7th District office."Perjury, Fraud Charges Refiled Against Richard Alarcon And Wife, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2012.
5/3/2012 WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: forgery
"A former Oshkosh woman will stand trial on two counts of election fraud and two counts of falsifying nomination papers. Forty-four-year-old Yadira Colon was bound over for trial Thursday in Milwaukee County." Woman to Be Tried for Election Fraud, Associated Press, May 3, 2012.
5/2/2012 INDIANA: Douglas Campbell: absentee ballot fraud
"Austin Mayor Douglas Campbell and a city employee surrendered Tuesday to face the felony voter fraud and conspiracy charges. The accusations include that they illegally accepted absentee ballots from voters and that Campbell in one instance filled out a woman's incomplete ballot." Southern Indiana mayor faces voter fraud charges, Associated Press, May 2, 2012.
4/26/2012 WISCONSIN: Austin Thompson: nonresident voting
"Voter registration applications from three men who listed the Glendale Residence Inn as their address is what sparked this investigation…The three including Austin Thompson, who was arrested last year during an occupy protest, are accused of voter fraud by registering and voting even though they lived in a hotel." Milwaukee County DA investigating voter fraud claims, WTMJ4, Apr. 26, 2012.
4/22/2012 VIRGINIA: 400 cases of vote fraud
"As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can't be located. A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3½ years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation." Mark Bowes, Va. Investigates voter fraud , Richmond Times Dispatch, Apr. 22, 2012.
4/14/2012 FLORIDA: 9 individuals charged with various counts of vote fraud "Abra “Tina” Hill Johnson, 43, was charged with 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations. Her husband Ernest Sinclair Johnson, Jr., 45, was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, one count of corruptly influencing voting, and one count of perjury by false written declaration. Jada Woods Williams, 34, Madison County Supervisor of Elections, was charged with 17 counts of neglect of duty and corrupt practices for allowing the distribution of these absentee ballots, contrary to Florida state statute. The following individuals, all residents of Madison, Fla., were arrested for their role in the fraud:
* Judy Ann Crumitie, 51, charged with four counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Laverne V. Haynes, 57, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Ora Bell Rivers, 41, charged with seven counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, three counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Raven Simona Williams, 20, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Shalonda Michaelle Brinson, 36, charged with nine counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of provided a false report to law enforcement authorities." Julie Montanaro and Mike Springer, Madison 9 Attorney Speaks Out, WCTV, Apr. 14, 2012.
4/10/2012 CALIFORNIA: Gary Sabara, Jr.: nonresident voting
"In one of the disallowed ballots, the chamber alleged voter Gary Sabara Jr. actually lived in Buena Park. Frederic Woocher, the chamber's attorney, presented evidence gathered by a private investigator, including Sabara's Facebook page and an Orange County Register article that listed him as a resident of Buena Park." Sam Allen, Vernon council election thrown into chaos by fraud allegations, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 10, 2012.
4/3/2012 INDIANA: forgery
"Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot. The officials are accused of taking part in a scheme to fake signatures and names on the primary petitions needed to run for president. Court papers say the plan was hatched by local Democratic Party officials inside the local party headquarters. Among those charged is the former long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, Butch Morgan, who allegedly ordered the forgeries...The St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration's Democratic board member, Pam Brunette, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton and Democratic volunteer and former board worker Dustin Blythe also face charges." Eric Shawn, 4 Indiana Dems charged with election fraud in 2008 presidential race, Fox News, Apr. 3, 2012.
3/24/2012 OHIO: multiple voting, nonresident voting
"Republican Jon Husted said Friday that an initial review by the Fulton County Board of Elections revealed that an individual appeared to have voted in both northwest Ohio and South Carolina in the 2008 and 2010 general elections. Husted asked Attorney General Mike DeWine to investigate. The county board told Husted the individual has been registered there since 2006. A person with the same name and personal information has also been a registered and active voter in SouthCarolina since 2002." Ohio elections chief asks for voter fraud probe, Associated Press, Mar. 24, 2012
3/22/2012 WISCONSIN: Michael Henderson: vote fraud
"Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that Michael Henderson, of Milwaukee, was convicted of election fraud arising out of the 2008 general Presidential election. Henderson was convicted of Election Fraud - Providing False Information to Election Official, a Class I felony. An additional count of Voting By Disqualified Person was dismissed against Henderson but read-in for the purposes of sentencing." Van Hollen announces voting fraud conviction, Bay View Compass, Mar. 22, 2012.
3/7/2012 WEST VIRGINIA: Jerry Bowman & Donald Whitten: absentee ballot fraud
"Prosecutors say Bowman and former Lincoln County Clerk Donald Whitten, 62, were part of a scheme to steal the May 2010 Democratic primary by stuffing ballot boxes with illegal absentee ballots. Bowman admitted to falsifying more than 100 of the absentee ballot applications and even voting with some of the ballots himself, while Whitten, who also pleaded guilty Wednesday, acknowledged lying to investigators about the plan to try to throw the election." Eric Shawn, Former West Virginia sheriff, county clerk plead guilty to attempting to steal election, Fox News, Mar. 7, 2012.
3/7/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: 4 charged with nonresident voting
"Statesville City Councilman Flake Huggins and three family members have been indicted on voter fraud charges after investigators said the politician had relatives lie about their addresses to vote in his runoff race last fall….According to Iredell and Alexander County District Attorney Sarah Kirkman, the disqualified votes were cast by Huggins' sister Rhonda Williams, her husband, Willie Williams Jr., and son, Christopher Williams." Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and David Vieser, Politician charged in voter fraud case, Charlotte Observer, Mar. 7, 2012
3/6/2012 ALABAMA: Venustian Hernandez-Hernandez: noncitizen voting, voter impersonation
"Records from the Baldwin County Board of Registrars show that Hernandez-Hernandez is registered to vote under the name of Severo Benavidez, the name he used for almost 4 decades after slipping into the United States from his native Mexico in the 1970…Ed Packard, an election official with the Alabama Secretary of State's Office, said Baldwin County's voter rolls have included Severo Benavidez since 1984. Packard said the 62-year-old man voted in the 1996 and 2008 general elections, the 2002 primary election and special elections on a constitutional amendment to overhaul Alabama's tax system in 2003 and to incorporate Perdido Beach as Baldwin County's 14th municipality in 2009." Brendan Kirby, Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly under name of U.S. citizen, records showPress-Register, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/6/2012 NEW MEXICO: Priscilla Morales & Angelica Marquez: nonresident voting
"A former Sunland Park city councilor and a current city employee were charged today in the alleged voter-fraud scheme that has rocked the town. Priscilla Morales, the public works director's secretary, and former Councilor Angelica Marquez each face fourth-degree felony charges of false voting and conspiracy to commit false voting." Heath Haussamen, Two more charged in Sunland Park voter-fraud scheme, N.M. Politics, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/4/2012 NEW MEXICO: Silvia Gomez: nonresident voting
"In the new case, investigators allege that Gomez pushed two El Paso residents to illegally register to vote in Sunland Park and then cast ballots in the mayoral race for Salinas... When the two advised Gomez they were Texas residents, "Silvia Gomez told them it was okay and that they could use Silvia Gomez's address as their residence on the voter registration form," the criminal complaint states." Heath Haussamen, Sunland Park employee arrested on false voting charges, N.M. Politics, Mar. 4, 2012.
2/27/2012 TEXAS: Carlos Medranos: illegal voting
"Carlos Medrano was sentenced to 180 days in county jail, five years probation and assessed a $2,500 fine." Rudolph Bush, Carlos Medrano guilty of one count of illegal voting. Frank Medrano not guilty of perjury chargesDallas News, Feb. 27, 2012.
2/17/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: Erik Ray Jackson: voter impersonation, nonresident voting
"The warrant states that Jackson registered to vote in Montgomery County on Oct. 4, 2011, and used the address of 305 N. Tomlinson St., Candor, the same address as Wayne Holyfield, a state trooper who was elected to the Candor Board of Commissioners last November and has been embroiled in a controversy over firing four of the five officers on the town police force. According to the warrant, Jackson lived at 131 Young Drive, Lexington, at the time of the election and had lived there since Sept. 16, 2011. The warrant also says that Jackson voted in the Candor municipal election on Nov. 8, 2011, and was not a resident of Candor for at least 30 days preceding the election as required by law." Mary Anderson, Jackson charged with voter fraud in Montgomery County, Courier-Tribune, Feb. 17, 2012.
2/16/2012 MASSACHUSETTS: Mark Evangelous: absentee ballot fraud, posthumous voting
"A former candidate for the Marlborough City Council was arraigned yesterday on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex prosecutors said yesterday. Mark Evangelous, 51, of Marlborough, faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.'s office said."Marlborough man accused of voter fraud, Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 2012.
2/13/2012 OHIO: Melissa R. Schilling: forgery
"A Fairfield County woman will serve jail time for providing two false signatures on a liquor-option petition filed with the county Board of Elections last year. County Common Pleas Judge Richard E. Berens sentenced Melissa R. Schilling, 46, of Baltimore, on Friday, after she pleaded guilty to two counts of the fifth-degree felony, a court spokesman said." Mary Beth Lane, Fairfield County woman sentenced for falsifying petition signatures, Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2012.
2/7/2012 WASHINGTON: Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom: noncitizen voting
"A 35-year-old Glenoma woman who emigrated to the United States from Ghana, Africa, is accused of voter fraud in Lewis County Superior Court. Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom is expected on Feb. 16 to enter a plea to one count of providing false information on an application for voter registration." Adam Pearson, Glenoma Woman Charged with Voter Fraud, The Chronicle, Feb. 7, 2012.
2/2/2012 FLORIDA: noncitizen voting
"'I vote every year,' Hinako Dennett told NBC2. The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she's registered to vote. NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn't serve as a juror because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters. Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn't know how she got registered…Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years. 'I know you cannot vote before you become a citizen, so I never tried to do anything like that,' Samuel Lincoln said. He isn't a U.S. citizen either, but the Jamaican national says he doesn't know how he ended up registered to vote. 'It's their mistake, not mine,' said Lincoln. We obtained a copy of his 2007 voter registration application. It's clearly shows he marked U.S. citizen." Andy Pierrotti, NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud, Feb. 2, 2012.
11/28/2011 GEORGIA: 12 officials indicted for vote fraud
"12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot…. The defendants include some workers in the voter registrar's office and some school board members. They are Angela Bryant, April Proctor, Brenda Monds, Debra Denard, Lula Smart, Kechia Harrison, Robert Denard, Sandra Cody, Elizabeth Thomas, Linda Troutman, Latashia Head, and Nancy Denard." Stephen Abel, 12 former officials indicted for voter fraud, WALB, Nov. 28, 2011.
Check out a survey of vote fraud over the past decade.
Article Source; https://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
Thomas Sowell Quote;
"It doesn't matter what rights you have under the Constitution of the United States, if the government can punish you for exercising those rights. And it doesn't matter what limits the Constitution puts on government officials' power, if they can exceed those limits without any adverse consequences. In other words, the Constitution cannot protect you, if you don't protect the Constitution with your votes against anyone who violates it. Those government officials who want more power are not going to stop unless they get stopped. As long as millions of Americans vote on the basis of who gives them free stuff, look for their freedom -- and all our freedom -- to be eroded away, bit by bit. Our children and grandchildren may yet come to see the Constitution as just some quaint words from the past that people once took seriously."
-- Thomas Sowell
(1930- ) Writer and economist
Source: Freedom Isn't Free, March 4, 2014
-- Thomas Sowell
(1930- ) Writer and economist
Source: Freedom Isn't Free, March 4, 2014
Like Sheep To The Slaughter, Unions Are Supporting The Party That Is Destroying their Livelihoods!
I guess back stabbing actions speak louder than Progressives LIES!
Source; Union Miners Rally At EPA To Protest New Emissions Standards
I am a retired Union Man and proud of the fact that I worked hard my entire life to provide for my family, and subsequently retired with a pension. I have always attributed that to the fact that my Father and Grandfathers generations (both coal miners by trade) helped to bring about the Unions that were so necessary at that time. They were also staunch Democrats since that was the party that traditionally worked to create legislation that allowed the working man to organize and take control of his working conditions. Up to that point the conditions were dangerous to the point of life threatening, and the mine owners had little if any concern for the health and safety of their workers. Then as now, Profits ruled and people did not matter.
That was the time that Unions were the shining star of the working class and were the central contributor to a strong and healthy middle class which took America to the forefront as a world leader. That happened because of the alliance between the Democratic party and the United Mine Workers of America and went on to organize the other workers Like the UAW. This was not originally a peaceful process for the workers and the Democrats. Both faced opposition and vicious attacks by the company men. My Grandfather fell to their violence, murdered for daring to support a safe workplace, and a living wage. My Father was badgered hounded and threatened when he was helping to organize the Auto Workers in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
On Tuesday 10/7/14, the UMWA, IBEW,IBB were marching in Washington to show solidarity AGAINST the Democratically Controlled EPA, and put the Obama Administration and Democrats in General on Notice. One quote from the ground troops at the rally was;" We fought for those Progressive causes, and there are people in the progressive movement who have forgotten us.If you try to foist this devastation on Appalachia,on our brothers and sisters,we will remember."
That quote was made by Daniel Kane, who is the secretary-treasurer of the UMWA. We now have union members who are beginning to see the light that they are being manipulated and used by the Democrats who still pretend to be on their side.Seems to me that once the Progressive Socialists have used someone to their advantage and don't need them anymore, they willingly throw them to the dogs so to speak.
. Fortunately for America both sides settled down into a very good working arrangement that benefited both sides and the Nation in general making it the preeminent Innovative scientific and manufacturing powerhouse that it once was. However somewhere along the line, the Democratic Party was subverted by an inimical force that turned everything good the party had done into a Party that was centered on advancing the elites and their cronys to bring back the dark days for the workers.
I had thought originally that The Democrats were infiltrated by the stealth forces of Josef Stalin along with the centers of higher education that Stalin was using to bring down America in a hidden war against our principles of Personal Liberty and Freedom to supplant them with the Communist philosophy of everyone working for the benefit of the Central Government which was populated by the Elitists.
I labored long in researching the schism that seemingly rent apart the Democratic Party my forebears generation knew, and I but partially knew since it was radically and rapidly changing into the monster it has now become. I have seen where it has used the unions in a slavish way, promising them all their former glory before the party made it so unprofitable that it drove the best jobs out of the Country. The Democrats have used and severely abused the self same unions that have come to their aid in many elections to keep those churls in power, who then stab the workers in the back at every turn.
If you read the Source listed at the beginning of this treatise,and you really must to understand how the Democratic Socialist Progressives betray all who are not in their inner circle, you will see how the UMWA was duped into supporting a false flag political group that is now bent on destroying their industry through Excessive and Crippling Regulations that only benefit the current friends (Chinese and Elites of Green Industry) of the Democrats. I found it hard to denounce the Democrats because of my family tradition and loyalty to that party, but if I am to remain honest and honorable Denounce them I did! Don't think I came to this easily or without long soul searching thought. I tell you this now because I know from personal experience that the rank and file Americans can learn and rise up against the shadow on the land the Progressive Socialists have cast, and work to do the right thing. All they need to do that is the TRUTH..
Many will not believe that it was through the underhanded machinations of the Democrats and the mind boggling propaganda they have used to twist the minds of so many of my once Union Brothers, what a destructive force they are against the very workers they pretend to support. I saw early on what the Democrats were doing and spoke out detailing what was happening because of them in the auto industry. Because of that I was shunned and censured, verbally harassed, and called crazy or worse, a bald faced liar for the Company.
I saw the regulations that were piled on and how they would eventually drive the companies bankrupt. Before that, I was originally a patrolman for years, and it was in in a Democratically ruled/controlled city comparable to, and following the spiritual/corrupt lead of Tammany Hall, before it's total influence on New York was brought down by Elinor Roosevelt of all people, for them not supporting Franklin.I saw first hand how they basically forced Unionism on the cities and had supplanted the civil service system. It wrecked havoc with all civil service jobs, rendered the Civil Service impotent, and gave rise to Democrat Controlled Cronyism in jobs that were originally intended to be impartial with a testing system in place for promotions.
Now, with the unions in control, the City,State,and Federal workers have a voice in negotiations, The government has a voice in negotiations, but the taxpayer has no voice in the negotiations. The Plebes know they can now vote themselves bread and circuses until the system collapses.
I see no reason that unions should embrace the same party that has undermined them while promising them superior/special status and added considerations, when it has the history of two bankrupt major auto manufacturers, and prior to that, the dissolution of two other well known auto manufacturers (Checker Motors, American Motors). Thousands of lost jobs due to outsourcing because of too heavy regulations and over taxation thrown into the mix. Look at cities that used to be almost revered and envied worldwide for their prosperity and manufacturing prowess.
Where is the Aircraft Industry? Where is the Steel Industry? Where is the Automobile Industry? Where are the Small businesses which are the backbone of American Prosperity? For that matter where is the Space Industry? Now it will be the Chinese and Russians who hold the high ground and have the lock on future advancements in medicine and technology. The Democratically controlled EPA forced the last lead smelter out of business through ruinous regulations to satisfy the Progressive elites desire to curtail ammunition manufacturing and make the guns they could not get banned useless.
Detroit is a prime example. The failures of LBJs Great Society where he stole the assets from the Social Security Administration, the money of which was forceably extorted from all the working class people with the same promise of a return as any other Ponzi Scheme ever created.
Everywhere you look you see the Democrats, or should I call them by their current manifestation Democratic Socio-Communists? All they have done is lie, cheat,use, and steal from those who have supported their schemes for making their leaders and their friends supreme and in control of every aspect of American Society and Business. Lets take a look see back in time to our Founding.
Originally at the founding of America there were two factions, One wanted a free self ruled society where the people made the decisions and the elected representatives carried them out. They also wanted a weak Central Government that would be responsible for only specific things, and it was to be subservient to the States and the people. That was the enumerated power of regulating trade between what was independent nations in fee simple.
The other side wanted a strong Central government that had control of literally everything and wanted the States to be subservient to it. Don't ever forget that the United States is made up of what was originally States in the old European tradition of a State being a sovereign nation unto itself. Those States banded together in a Union for protection. They never intentionally decided to give up their individual sovereignty.
The two sides were then known as Federalists who wanted a stronger central government, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted it to be a weak subservient government. I suspect the original Federalists were actually Tories who believed in rule by kings instead of self rule since it would gain for the top people more power and prestige. not to mention more money for themselves. OK, do you know what Political Party was the first Political Party and why? History tells us it was the first iteration of the Democratic-Republican Party as it was known until the split over the Slavery Issue where the current democratic Party was all for it continuing, and the Republican faction split off to become what is known today as the GOP or Republican Party. Notice one thing, neither Party gave up their philosophy of a massive all controlling Central government.
Since then the Democratic Party has taken the forefront in the move to massively grow the Government. Until the dawning of the Reagan era, the GOP was and in some instances still is doing the same thing.My point is, the people became derelict in their obligation to keep a careful watch on the government and that has resulted in the fiasco we have today.
The way to Start to restore the Republic, and I stress that it will only be a start! We must gain at least a two year window where the issues will not be determined by the current crop of Democratic Socialists/Progressives in Congress. We must block their steam rolling advance towards making America a Socialist Democracy instead of the Constitutional Republic it still is. If we don't get that window, we will never have the chance to reform both the major political parties into what we want them to be, namely Parties that protect and defend the Constitution and do not overstep their enumerated authority under the Constitution. If we don't do it no one will do it for us.
Source; Union Miners Rally At EPA To Protest New Emissions Standards
I am a retired Union Man and proud of the fact that I worked hard my entire life to provide for my family, and subsequently retired with a pension. I have always attributed that to the fact that my Father and Grandfathers generations (both coal miners by trade) helped to bring about the Unions that were so necessary at that time. They were also staunch Democrats since that was the party that traditionally worked to create legislation that allowed the working man to organize and take control of his working conditions. Up to that point the conditions were dangerous to the point of life threatening, and the mine owners had little if any concern for the health and safety of their workers. Then as now, Profits ruled and people did not matter.
That was the time that Unions were the shining star of the working class and were the central contributor to a strong and healthy middle class which took America to the forefront as a world leader. That happened because of the alliance between the Democratic party and the United Mine Workers of America and went on to organize the other workers Like the UAW. This was not originally a peaceful process for the workers and the Democrats. Both faced opposition and vicious attacks by the company men. My Grandfather fell to their violence, murdered for daring to support a safe workplace, and a living wage. My Father was badgered hounded and threatened when he was helping to organize the Auto Workers in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
On Tuesday 10/7/14, the UMWA, IBEW,IBB were marching in Washington to show solidarity AGAINST the Democratically Controlled EPA, and put the Obama Administration and Democrats in General on Notice. One quote from the ground troops at the rally was;" We fought for those Progressive causes, and there are people in the progressive movement who have forgotten us.If you try to foist this devastation on Appalachia,on our brothers and sisters,we will remember."
That quote was made by Daniel Kane, who is the secretary-treasurer of the UMWA. We now have union members who are beginning to see the light that they are being manipulated and used by the Democrats who still pretend to be on their side.Seems to me that once the Progressive Socialists have used someone to their advantage and don't need them anymore, they willingly throw them to the dogs so to speak.
. Fortunately for America both sides settled down into a very good working arrangement that benefited both sides and the Nation in general making it the preeminent Innovative scientific and manufacturing powerhouse that it once was. However somewhere along the line, the Democratic Party was subverted by an inimical force that turned everything good the party had done into a Party that was centered on advancing the elites and their cronys to bring back the dark days for the workers.
I had thought originally that The Democrats were infiltrated by the stealth forces of Josef Stalin along with the centers of higher education that Stalin was using to bring down America in a hidden war against our principles of Personal Liberty and Freedom to supplant them with the Communist philosophy of everyone working for the benefit of the Central Government which was populated by the Elitists.
I labored long in researching the schism that seemingly rent apart the Democratic Party my forebears generation knew, and I but partially knew since it was radically and rapidly changing into the monster it has now become. I have seen where it has used the unions in a slavish way, promising them all their former glory before the party made it so unprofitable that it drove the best jobs out of the Country. The Democrats have used and severely abused the self same unions that have come to their aid in many elections to keep those churls in power, who then stab the workers in the back at every turn.
If you read the Source listed at the beginning of this treatise,and you really must to understand how the Democratic Socialist Progressives betray all who are not in their inner circle, you will see how the UMWA was duped into supporting a false flag political group that is now bent on destroying their industry through Excessive and Crippling Regulations that only benefit the current friends (Chinese and Elites of Green Industry) of the Democrats. I found it hard to denounce the Democrats because of my family tradition and loyalty to that party, but if I am to remain honest and honorable Denounce them I did! Don't think I came to this easily or without long soul searching thought. I tell you this now because I know from personal experience that the rank and file Americans can learn and rise up against the shadow on the land the Progressive Socialists have cast, and work to do the right thing. All they need to do that is the TRUTH..
Many will not believe that it was through the underhanded machinations of the Democrats and the mind boggling propaganda they have used to twist the minds of so many of my once Union Brothers, what a destructive force they are against the very workers they pretend to support. I saw early on what the Democrats were doing and spoke out detailing what was happening because of them in the auto industry. Because of that I was shunned and censured, verbally harassed, and called crazy or worse, a bald faced liar for the Company.
I saw the regulations that were piled on and how they would eventually drive the companies bankrupt. Before that, I was originally a patrolman for years, and it was in in a Democratically ruled/controlled city comparable to, and following the spiritual/corrupt lead of Tammany Hall, before it's total influence on New York was brought down by Elinor Roosevelt of all people, for them not supporting Franklin.I saw first hand how they basically forced Unionism on the cities and had supplanted the civil service system. It wrecked havoc with all civil service jobs, rendered the Civil Service impotent, and gave rise to Democrat Controlled Cronyism in jobs that were originally intended to be impartial with a testing system in place for promotions.
Now, with the unions in control, the City,State,and Federal workers have a voice in negotiations, The government has a voice in negotiations, but the taxpayer has no voice in the negotiations. The Plebes know they can now vote themselves bread and circuses until the system collapses.
I see no reason that unions should embrace the same party that has undermined them while promising them superior/special status and added considerations, when it has the history of two bankrupt major auto manufacturers, and prior to that, the dissolution of two other well known auto manufacturers (Checker Motors, American Motors). Thousands of lost jobs due to outsourcing because of too heavy regulations and over taxation thrown into the mix. Look at cities that used to be almost revered and envied worldwide for their prosperity and manufacturing prowess.
Where is the Aircraft Industry? Where is the Steel Industry? Where is the Automobile Industry? Where are the Small businesses which are the backbone of American Prosperity? For that matter where is the Space Industry? Now it will be the Chinese and Russians who hold the high ground and have the lock on future advancements in medicine and technology. The Democratically controlled EPA forced the last lead smelter out of business through ruinous regulations to satisfy the Progressive elites desire to curtail ammunition manufacturing and make the guns they could not get banned useless.
Detroit is a prime example. The failures of LBJs Great Society where he stole the assets from the Social Security Administration, the money of which was forceably extorted from all the working class people with the same promise of a return as any other Ponzi Scheme ever created.
Everywhere you look you see the Democrats, or should I call them by their current manifestation Democratic Socio-Communists? All they have done is lie, cheat,use, and steal from those who have supported their schemes for making their leaders and their friends supreme and in control of every aspect of American Society and Business. Lets take a look see back in time to our Founding.
Originally at the founding of America there were two factions, One wanted a free self ruled society where the people made the decisions and the elected representatives carried them out. They also wanted a weak Central Government that would be responsible for only specific things, and it was to be subservient to the States and the people. That was the enumerated power of regulating trade between what was independent nations in fee simple.
The other side wanted a strong Central government that had control of literally everything and wanted the States to be subservient to it. Don't ever forget that the United States is made up of what was originally States in the old European tradition of a State being a sovereign nation unto itself. Those States banded together in a Union for protection. They never intentionally decided to give up their individual sovereignty.
The two sides were then known as Federalists who wanted a stronger central government, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted it to be a weak subservient government. I suspect the original Federalists were actually Tories who believed in rule by kings instead of self rule since it would gain for the top people more power and prestige. not to mention more money for themselves. OK, do you know what Political Party was the first Political Party and why? History tells us it was the first iteration of the Democratic-Republican Party as it was known until the split over the Slavery Issue where the current democratic Party was all for it continuing, and the Republican faction split off to become what is known today as the GOP or Republican Party. Notice one thing, neither Party gave up their philosophy of a massive all controlling Central government.
Since then the Democratic Party has taken the forefront in the move to massively grow the Government. Until the dawning of the Reagan era, the GOP was and in some instances still is doing the same thing.My point is, the people became derelict in their obligation to keep a careful watch on the government and that has resulted in the fiasco we have today.
The way to Start to restore the Republic, and I stress that it will only be a start! We must gain at least a two year window where the issues will not be determined by the current crop of Democratic Socialists/Progressives in Congress. We must block their steam rolling advance towards making America a Socialist Democracy instead of the Constitutional Republic it still is. If we don't get that window, we will never have the chance to reform both the major political parties into what we want them to be, namely Parties that protect and defend the Constitution and do not overstep their enumerated authority under the Constitution. If we don't do it no one will do it for us.
Why Are Some Democrats Working Against Americas Safety And Security?
Main Source; CFIF.org Patriot Update;
Sen. Ted Cruz has firmly stated that we need to pass legislation to stop American traitors who are fighting with ISIS/ISIL from returning to the US by revoking their passports. The truth is we don't know how many Americans are joining in the fight against the US by going to the Middle East and joining our deadly enemies there. If you do not believe this, go to the many social media sites where Islamic terrorists are actually stating there are plans to send these people back to the US as stealth terrorists.
We know there is a definite threat from ISIS/ISIL, so why are key Democrats blocking legislation that would have the effect of stopping most of the influx of turncoat Americans? Sen. Ted Cruzs' Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014 is the best way to begin. Yes, that is the main question, Why are Democrats in the Senate blocking a commonsense legislation bill to help protect the US from further terrorist activity from within? Is that Brain Damaged Two Faced Obamabot Senator Harry Reid behind the move as a stupid political ploy? I must confess I don't know.
What I do know is while speaking for her Fellow Democrat Senators, and aided by the ACLU, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hi) single handedly caused Sen. Ted Cruzs' unanimous consent motion to pass the Expatriate Act of 2014. What manner of subterfuge did she use to explain her unamerican act? She claimed that the Cruz bill would affect fundamental Constitutional Rights by enacting legislation that grants the government the right to strip Americans citizenship.
There is a problem she did not address with her diatribe against the Cruz legislation. the omission that negates her position is the fact that the Cruz proposed legislation is simply a necessary amendment to the already existing law 8 U.S.C. 1481. That law has a long list of actions that addresses the fact Americans who have voluntarily renounced their US Citizenship if they serve in the military forces of a foreign nation that is engaged in hostilities against the United States. All the Cruz amendment to that Existing Law added one further caveat "joining a designated terrorist organization". The fact that Sen. Hironos statement obfuscated was the Law in question has been in effect for 75 Years. So, what or who activated her against the security and safety of the United States and its citizens?
I seriously wonder exactly she thought it was so wrong to stop the Traitorous Americans who were fighting against America or gaining fifth column training from returning to the United States to create havoc, death, and Destruction? Whos side is Senator Hironos really on, and who are her puppet masters in Congress, the Administration, and Elsewhere? What purpose will it serve in the near future and what agenda will it advance? NWO?
Sen. Hirono or more correctly the powers using and directing her are using a phony Politically Correct argument about preserving Civil Liberties when the Terrorists she is protecting want to actually destroy all American Civil Liberties. Could it be the cult of personality that Obama has engendered in the Democratic Socialists in congress has risked their political futures to protect their "Great Man" and his idiotic narrative rhetoric about ISIS/ISIL? Have they been brainwashed that much? Or has something else happened we don't know about that has been programmed to burst forth at a later date to destroy the remaining Conservatives in America? What the Hell are the Democratic Socialists thinking and planning?
Ask yourself this; Why would the group of Senators who have taken a solemn oath to protect America, suddenly object to an act that would protect America on such a flimsy and contrived technicality that has little or no basis in fact? Something very carefully planned for the long term is definitely up. We need to really start looking where the Progressive Socialists and NWO proponents don't want us to look! Hirono has placed the Constitutional Rights of Traitors to America above the Constitutional Rights of Honorable, Law Abiding and Patriotic Americans.
It's time to confront your representatives in their home states very publicly and loudly on this and the many other issues that have been thrown in the faces of conservative Americans by the Democratic Socialists who are attempting to get reelected by hook or crook, and why has there been no sufficient outrage and counter measures from the Republican Party on these things?
None of us can do it alone, but all of us with the basic tools of pencil and paper can work together to deluge our representatives local offices with telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, and written protests. These things really count in an election year. The more flak the politician gets in the way of faxes and letters, the more they will accede to our demands. this only works when there are numbers of people doing the same thing, or, there is a group making a concerted effort to dominate the conversations through various methods. Think of that old tried and true adage,"The squeaky wheel gets the grease first". If enough outrage over a given situation is expressed, the honest politician will respond and change their tune. however if the politician speaks in inane platitudes and tries to change the subject, vote them out because they don't care about the public they are supposed to serve.
The Tradesman
Sen. Ted Cruz has firmly stated that we need to pass legislation to stop American traitors who are fighting with ISIS/ISIL from returning to the US by revoking their passports. The truth is we don't know how many Americans are joining in the fight against the US by going to the Middle East and joining our deadly enemies there. If you do not believe this, go to the many social media sites where Islamic terrorists are actually stating there are plans to send these people back to the US as stealth terrorists.
We know there is a definite threat from ISIS/ISIL, so why are key Democrats blocking legislation that would have the effect of stopping most of the influx of turncoat Americans? Sen. Ted Cruzs' Expatriate Terrorist Act of 2014 is the best way to begin. Yes, that is the main question, Why are Democrats in the Senate blocking a commonsense legislation bill to help protect the US from further terrorist activity from within? Is that Brain Damaged Two Faced Obamabot Senator Harry Reid behind the move as a stupid political ploy? I must confess I don't know.
What I do know is while speaking for her Fellow Democrat Senators, and aided by the ACLU, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hi) single handedly caused Sen. Ted Cruzs' unanimous consent motion to pass the Expatriate Act of 2014. What manner of subterfuge did she use to explain her unamerican act? She claimed that the Cruz bill would affect fundamental Constitutional Rights by enacting legislation that grants the government the right to strip Americans citizenship.
There is a problem she did not address with her diatribe against the Cruz legislation. the omission that negates her position is the fact that the Cruz proposed legislation is simply a necessary amendment to the already existing law 8 U.S.C. 1481. That law has a long list of actions that addresses the fact Americans who have voluntarily renounced their US Citizenship if they serve in the military forces of a foreign nation that is engaged in hostilities against the United States. All the Cruz amendment to that Existing Law added one further caveat "joining a designated terrorist organization". The fact that Sen. Hironos statement obfuscated was the Law in question has been in effect for 75 Years. So, what or who activated her against the security and safety of the United States and its citizens?
I seriously wonder exactly she thought it was so wrong to stop the Traitorous Americans who were fighting against America or gaining fifth column training from returning to the United States to create havoc, death, and Destruction? Whos side is Senator Hironos really on, and who are her puppet masters in Congress, the Administration, and Elsewhere? What purpose will it serve in the near future and what agenda will it advance? NWO?
Sen. Hirono or more correctly the powers using and directing her are using a phony Politically Correct argument about preserving Civil Liberties when the Terrorists she is protecting want to actually destroy all American Civil Liberties. Could it be the cult of personality that Obama has engendered in the Democratic Socialists in congress has risked their political futures to protect their "Great Man" and his idiotic narrative rhetoric about ISIS/ISIL? Have they been brainwashed that much? Or has something else happened we don't know about that has been programmed to burst forth at a later date to destroy the remaining Conservatives in America? What the Hell are the Democratic Socialists thinking and planning?
Ask yourself this; Why would the group of Senators who have taken a solemn oath to protect America, suddenly object to an act that would protect America on such a flimsy and contrived technicality that has little or no basis in fact? Something very carefully planned for the long term is definitely up. We need to really start looking where the Progressive Socialists and NWO proponents don't want us to look! Hirono has placed the Constitutional Rights of Traitors to America above the Constitutional Rights of Honorable, Law Abiding and Patriotic Americans.
It's time to confront your representatives in their home states very publicly and loudly on this and the many other issues that have been thrown in the faces of conservative Americans by the Democratic Socialists who are attempting to get reelected by hook or crook, and why has there been no sufficient outrage and counter measures from the Republican Party on these things?
None of us can do it alone, but all of us with the basic tools of pencil and paper can work together to deluge our representatives local offices with telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, and written protests. These things really count in an election year. The more flak the politician gets in the way of faxes and letters, the more they will accede to our demands. this only works when there are numbers of people doing the same thing, or, there is a group making a concerted effort to dominate the conversations through various methods. Think of that old tried and true adage,"The squeaky wheel gets the grease first". If enough outrage over a given situation is expressed, the honest politician will respond and change their tune. however if the politician speaks in inane platitudes and tries to change the subject, vote them out because they don't care about the public they are supposed to serve.
The Tradesman
The Hillary Letters: Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed
BY: Alana Goodman
September 21, 2014 10:00 pm
NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beaconshow.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.
Sources; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
Source; http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/ ;
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
September 21, 2014 10:00 pm
NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beaconshow.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.
Sources; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
Source; http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/ ;
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
EXCLUSIVE: Luis Gutierrez, Obama’s Poster Boy for Amnesty, and His Unique Family “Fundraising” Business
By: Lee Cary
Doug Ross @ Journal
Former Chicago Alderman, and now 11-term Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D. 4th Dist. IL) is described by one news outlet as a “59-year-old Illinois congressman [who] stands 5 feet 6 inches tall, which is only one reason he got his nickname, “El Gallito” — the little fighting rooster.”
Doug Ross @ Journal
Former Chicago Alderman, and now 11-term Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D. 4th Dist. IL) is described by one news outlet as a “59-year-old Illinois congressman [who] stands 5 feet 6 inches tall, which is only one reason he got his nickname, “El Gallito” — the little fighting rooster.”
As immigration chairman for the House Hispanic caucus, Gutierrez is fighting hard for a Presidential Executive Order granting amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.
He says, ““When I see those children, I see my own daughter. I can’t help but see that. I see my nieces and nephews.”
Gutierrez’s reputation in Chicagoland’s politics is not untarnished. There’s that sweetheart deal he got from Tony Rezko in the purchase of a condo for his daughter. There’s the $500,000 plus he paid in taxpayer money over 10 years to a Chicago lobbyist to advise his congressional staff. And, the 2004 allegation that Gutierrez lobbied Mayor Daley for a residential development owned by a man who loaned Luis $200,000. The developer was later federally indicted concerning the same development.
But forget all that – that’s all in the past.
Today, Gutierrez is firmly ensconced in one of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in America. You need a GPS to find its boundaries.
Gutierrez’s reputation in Chicagoland’s politics is not untarnished. There’s that sweetheart deal he got from Tony Rezko in the purchase of a condo for his daughter. There’s the $500,000 plus he paid in taxpayer money over 10 years to a Chicago lobbyist to advise his congressional staff. And, the 2004 allegation that Gutierrez lobbied Mayor Daley for a residential development owned by a man who loaned Luis $200,000. The developer was later federally indicted concerning the same development.
But forget all that – that’s all in the past.
Today, Gutierrez is firmly ensconced in one of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in America. You need a GPS to find its boundaries.
These days, the 4th Illinois District Congressman is making political fund-raising a family business.
Gutierrez For Congress Campaign Fund
In the last eight election cycles, from the 1998 through mid-2014, Gutierrez For Congress raised $2,973,972.
In the last seven races – 2014 is pending – Gutierrez’s opponents have raised a total of $14,192; all of that was collected by his 2012 opponent, Hector L. Concepcion. Concepcion spent all but one dollar of his campaign fund in his 2012 race against Gutierrez. Gutierrez, who received 83% of the vote, spent $383,558 and still had $354,393 cash-in-hand after he won.
Gutierrez won his last seven general elections with an average of 81% of the votes cast.
If Gutierrez repeatedly wins so handily over un- and under-funded candidates, why does he continue to aggressively raise campaign money every cycle?
Hold that thought.
In the last two election cycles, 2010-2012 & 2013-mid2014, Gutierrez For Congress raised a total of $524,452. (All statistics cited herein come from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) website,www.fec.gov, and from www.opensecrets.org .)
FEC filings for the last two election cycles (2014 is incomplete) indicate that Gutierrez For Congress paid out, over those three-and-a-half years, $173,879 for the position of “Office Manager, Treasurer and Fundraising” for his campaign.
That expenditure represents over 33% of the total campaign donations raised during 42 months into the 2014 cycle.
The “Payee Name” listed on the FEC filings as having received payment as “Office Manager, Treasurer and Fundraising” is Soraida Gutierrez – also known as Mrs. Luis Gutierrez.
As an aside, the last alphabetical entry in the campaign expenditures filed during the first half of 2013 (Transaction D42169) reported $5,300 for “Yates, 230 E. Center Drive, Vernon Hills, IL, 60061.” The “Purpose of the Expenditure” is indicated as “reimbursed charged to wrong account.” Dr. William D. Yates, M.D. runs the Yates Hair Science Group clinic at that address.
Gutierrez For Congress Campaign Fund
In the last eight election cycles, from the 1998 through mid-2014, Gutierrez For Congress raised $2,973,972.
In the last seven races – 2014 is pending – Gutierrez’s opponents have raised a total of $14,192; all of that was collected by his 2012 opponent, Hector L. Concepcion. Concepcion spent all but one dollar of his campaign fund in his 2012 race against Gutierrez. Gutierrez, who received 83% of the vote, spent $383,558 and still had $354,393 cash-in-hand after he won.
Gutierrez won his last seven general elections with an average of 81% of the votes cast.
If Gutierrez repeatedly wins so handily over un- and under-funded candidates, why does he continue to aggressively raise campaign money every cycle?
Hold that thought.
In the last two election cycles, 2010-2012 & 2013-mid2014, Gutierrez For Congress raised a total of $524,452. (All statistics cited herein come from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) website,www.fec.gov, and from www.opensecrets.org .)
FEC filings for the last two election cycles (2014 is incomplete) indicate that Gutierrez For Congress paid out, over those three-and-a-half years, $173,879 for the position of “Office Manager, Treasurer and Fundraising” for his campaign.
That expenditure represents over 33% of the total campaign donations raised during 42 months into the 2014 cycle.
The “Payee Name” listed on the FEC filings as having received payment as “Office Manager, Treasurer and Fundraising” is Soraida Gutierrez – also known as Mrs. Luis Gutierrez.
As an aside, the last alphabetical entry in the campaign expenditures filed during the first half of 2013 (Transaction D42169) reported $5,300 for “Yates, 230 E. Center Drive, Vernon Hills, IL, 60061.” The “Purpose of the Expenditure” is indicated as “reimbursed charged to wrong account.” Dr. William D. Yates, M.D. runs the Yates Hair Science Group clinic at that address.
Here are the top contributing PACs (with the exception of individual contributions from Cantu Construction – a major bundler for Hillary in 2008 in SE Texas) to Gutierrez’s 2014 campaign to date (source: OpenSecrets.org):
1 Border Health $10,000
Deloitte LLP 10,000
The New Americans Fund (FEC I.D. #C00530816), 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, was formed on September 28, 2012. That is also, by the way, the address for Davey Consulting – A Political Fundraising Firm.
Luis V. Gutierrez is listed in the FEC’s Statement of Organization as the “Connected Organization, Affiliated Committee, Joint Fundraising Representative, or Leadership PAC Sponsor.”
Danny (Daniel) Solis, Chicago 25th Ward Alderman, is the “Custodian of Records.”
Omaira Figueroa, Luis and Soraida Gutierrez’s daughter, is the “Treasurer.”
As of the close of the January 1 – June 20, 2013 reporting period, the New Americans Fund had a cash-on-hand balance of $80,108.45. In its lifetime, NAF disbursed $7,221.55.
Here are some significant contributors to New Americans Fund in the 2012 cycle:
RankContributorTotalIndivsPACs
1United Building Maintenance$10,000$10,000$02Aarnstein & Lehr Llp$5,000$5,000$02American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$5,000$0$5,0002Brown Udell Pomerantz, et al$5,000$5,000$02Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$5,000$0$5,0006Goldman Sachs$2,500$0$2,5006UBS Americas$2,500$0$2,5006Wal-Mart Stores$2,500$0$2,5009Allstate Insurance$1,500$0$1,5009Chicago Board Options Exchange$1,500$0$1,5009General Electric$1,500$0$1,5009Investment Co Institute$1,500$0$1,5009Rent-A-Center$1,500$0$1,50014Aaron’s Inc$1,000$0$1,00014Association of Progressive Rental Organizations$1,000$0$1,00014Capitol Counsel$1,000$1,000$014Constellation Brands$1,000$0$1,00014Hispanic Chamber of Commerce$1,000$1,000$014Hispanic Housing Development Corp$1,000$1,000$014Next Realty$1,000$1,000$014Regions Financial$1,000$0$1,00014Sallie Mae$1,000$0$1,00014Tropical Optical$1,000$1,000$0Additional contributors, excluding individuals, listed in FEC records include:
On November 18, 2013, the New Americans Fund changed its name to Immigration Reform Fund (IRF). The committee persons and the mailing address remained the same.
IRF carried over a balance of $80,108.45 from NAF.
From July 1, 2014 – June 15, 2014, IRF grew from the balance transferred from NAF to $167,415.06, and spent $14,137.39 ($5,000 went to Menendez for Senate).
Here is a list of leading IRF contributors in the 2014 cycle:
RankContributorTotalIndivsPACs
1United Building Maintenance$10,000$10,000$02McAllen Stained Glass$5,200$5,200$03American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$5,000$0$5,0003Border Health$5,000$0$5,0003Devon Bank$5,000$5,000$03Guaranteed Rate$5,000$5,000$03Gutierrez for Congress$5,000$0$5,0003Health Counselor$5,000$5,000$03Potomac Property Mgt$5,000$5,000$03Ranger Capital Management$5,000$5,000$03State of Illinois$5,000$5,000$03Ubm Mechanical$5,000$5,000$03Wyndalco Enterprises$5,000$5,000$014Apics$3,500$3,500$014Wal-Mart Stores$3,500$0$3,50016Comcast Corp$3,000$0$3,00017Connect-Ed Consulting$2,500$2,500$017International Bank of Commerce$2,500$0$2,50017Managed Care Marketing Ltd$2,500$2,500$017Miramar Group$2,500$2,500$0Obviously, the bulk of money – about $167,415.06 – collected through the two fundraising efforts awaits disbursement. But for what purpose does it wait?
Conclusion
El Gallito is this year’s most passionate, high-profile, congressional advocate for amnesty for Hispanic illegal immigrants.
Consequently, he attracts donations from like-minded persons, pro-undocumented immigrant organizations, and large corporations.
The motive of many contributors, individuals, and PACs, is clearly simpatico with those Gutierrez expresses – loudly and often.
The motive prompting large corporations to contribute to Gutierrez is less clear. But then many are prone to spread money across the political, ideological spectrum – hedging their bets.
Congressman Luis Gutierrez consistently highlights the plight of illegal immigrants in America, particularly Hispanics. (Chinese undocumented workers don’t show up on his radar screen.)
In Gutierrez’s case, the fact that there’s job security to be gained through aggressive, pro-illegal immigrant fundraising, as well as enhanced family assets, is, of course, merely an unintended consequence of his heart-felt compassion.
1 Border Health $10,000
Deloitte LLP 10,000
- National Assn of Realtors 8,000
- Cantu Construction 5,200
- AT&T Inc 5,000
- Carpenters & Joiners Union 5,000
- Laborers Union 5,000
- McDonald’s Corp 5,000
- Operating Engineers Union 5,000
- Service Employees International Union 5,000
- UNITE HERE 5,000
- Broadcasting Media Partners 4,000
- Costello for Congress Cmte 4,000
- American Institute of CPAs 3,940
- Accenture 3,500
- Allstate Insurance 3,000
- American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees 3,000
- Verizon Communications 3,000
- Ernst & Young 2,500
- Microsoft Corp 2,500
- Sheet Metal Workers Union 2,500
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union 2,500
The New Americans Fund (FEC I.D. #C00530816), 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, was formed on September 28, 2012. That is also, by the way, the address for Davey Consulting – A Political Fundraising Firm.
Luis V. Gutierrez is listed in the FEC’s Statement of Organization as the “Connected Organization, Affiliated Committee, Joint Fundraising Representative, or Leadership PAC Sponsor.”
Danny (Daniel) Solis, Chicago 25th Ward Alderman, is the “Custodian of Records.”
Omaira Figueroa, Luis and Soraida Gutierrez’s daughter, is the “Treasurer.”
As of the close of the January 1 – June 20, 2013 reporting period, the New Americans Fund had a cash-on-hand balance of $80,108.45. In its lifetime, NAF disbursed $7,221.55.
Here are some significant contributors to New Americans Fund in the 2012 cycle:
RankContributorTotalIndivsPACs
1United Building Maintenance$10,000$10,000$02Aarnstein & Lehr Llp$5,000$5,000$02American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$5,000$0$5,0002Brown Udell Pomerantz, et al$5,000$5,000$02Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$5,000$0$5,0006Goldman Sachs$2,500$0$2,5006UBS Americas$2,500$0$2,5006Wal-Mart Stores$2,500$0$2,5009Allstate Insurance$1,500$0$1,5009Chicago Board Options Exchange$1,500$0$1,5009General Electric$1,500$0$1,5009Investment Co Institute$1,500$0$1,5009Rent-A-Center$1,500$0$1,50014Aaron’s Inc$1,000$0$1,00014Association of Progressive Rental Organizations$1,000$0$1,00014Capitol Counsel$1,000$1,000$014Constellation Brands$1,000$0$1,00014Hispanic Chamber of Commerce$1,000$1,000$014Hispanic Housing Development Corp$1,000$1,000$014Next Realty$1,000$1,000$014Regions Financial$1,000$0$1,00014Sallie Mae$1,000$0$1,00014Tropical Optical$1,000$1,000$0Additional contributors, excluding individuals, listed in FEC records include:
- Friends of Saviano – $1,000
- Illinois Corn Growers Association PAC – 1,000
- McDonalds Corporation PAC – 1,500
- The Western Company PAC – 2,000
On November 18, 2013, the New Americans Fund changed its name to Immigration Reform Fund (IRF). The committee persons and the mailing address remained the same.
IRF carried over a balance of $80,108.45 from NAF.
From July 1, 2014 – June 15, 2014, IRF grew from the balance transferred from NAF to $167,415.06, and spent $14,137.39 ($5,000 went to Menendez for Senate).
Here is a list of leading IRF contributors in the 2014 cycle:
RankContributorTotalIndivsPACs
1United Building Maintenance$10,000$10,000$02McAllen Stained Glass$5,200$5,200$03American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$5,000$0$5,0003Border Health$5,000$0$5,0003Devon Bank$5,000$5,000$03Guaranteed Rate$5,000$5,000$03Gutierrez for Congress$5,000$0$5,0003Health Counselor$5,000$5,000$03Potomac Property Mgt$5,000$5,000$03Ranger Capital Management$5,000$5,000$03State of Illinois$5,000$5,000$03Ubm Mechanical$5,000$5,000$03Wyndalco Enterprises$5,000$5,000$014Apics$3,500$3,500$014Wal-Mart Stores$3,500$0$3,50016Comcast Corp$3,000$0$3,00017Connect-Ed Consulting$2,500$2,500$017International Bank of Commerce$2,500$0$2,50017Managed Care Marketing Ltd$2,500$2,500$017Miramar Group$2,500$2,500$0Obviously, the bulk of money – about $167,415.06 – collected through the two fundraising efforts awaits disbursement. But for what purpose does it wait?
Conclusion
El Gallito is this year’s most passionate, high-profile, congressional advocate for amnesty for Hispanic illegal immigrants.
Consequently, he attracts donations from like-minded persons, pro-undocumented immigrant organizations, and large corporations.
The motive of many contributors, individuals, and PACs, is clearly simpatico with those Gutierrez expresses – loudly and often.
The motive prompting large corporations to contribute to Gutierrez is less clear. But then many are prone to spread money across the political, ideological spectrum – hedging their bets.
Congressman Luis Gutierrez consistently highlights the plight of illegal immigrants in America, particularly Hispanics. (Chinese undocumented workers don’t show up on his radar screen.)
In Gutierrez’s case, the fact that there’s job security to be gained through aggressive, pro-illegal immigrant fundraising, as well as enhanced family assets, is, of course, merely an unintended consequence of his heart-felt compassion.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/09/exclusive-luis-gutierrez-obamas-poster-boy-for-amnesty-and-his-unique-family-fundraising-business/
Read more Lee Cary at American Thinker
Read more Lee Cary at American Thinker
EXCLUSIVE: Luis Gutierrez, Obama’s Poster Boy for Amnesty, and His Unique Family “Fundraising” Business
By: Lee Cary
Doug Ross @ Journal
Former Chicago Alderman, and now 11-term Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D. 4th Dist. IL) is described by one news outlet as a “59-year-old Illinois congressman [who] stands 5 feet 6 inches tall, which is only one reason he got his nickname, “El Gallito” — the little fighting rooster.”
Doug Ross @ Journal
Former Chicago Alderman, and now 11-term Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D. 4th Dist. IL) is described by one news outlet as a “59-year-old Illinois congressman [who] stands 5 feet 6 inches tall, which is only one reason he got his nickname, “El Gallito” — the little fighting rooster.”
Welfare vs. Work; U.S. vs. GB & Canada Health Care; Economic & Business for President's Cabinet - Telling Stuff
Amazing to say the least. If you can draw SS and get some of these bennies, why would half of the 49% workforce ever bother? I hope the Mac crowd doesn’t see this, they would strike for matching bennies! I bet when amnesty passes, more mom and pop fud trucks will appear selling everythin under the sol. Franchises will be way toooo cumbersome to operate; why not let the workers and union own, operate and feed themselves.
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Welfare vs. Work; U.S. vs. GB & Canada Health Care; Economic & Business for President's Cabinet - Telling Stuff
Rod
The New Welfare Map
Make sure you read to the bottom...
Quite an eye opener...
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Welfare vs. Work; U.S. vs. GB & Canada Health Care; Economic & Business for President's Cabinet - Telling Stuff
Rod
The New Welfare Map
Make sure you read to the bottom...
Quite an eye opener...
These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed! Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000,which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.
*************************************
Furthermore:
There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within sixmonths:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
<="FONT-SIZE: 24pt; COLOR: rgb(0,0,64)">Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%*************************************
And now..for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
*************************************
Check the last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet... who had worked in the private business sector...prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business...not a government job.
Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt....................38%
Taft.............................40%
Wilson ........................52%
Harding.......................49%
Coolidge......................48%
Hoover.........................42%
F. Roosevelt.................50%
Truman........................50%
Eisenhower..................57%
Kennedy.......................30%
Johnson.......................47%
Nixon............................53%
Ford.............................42%
Carter...........................32%
Reagan........................56%
GH Bush......................51%
Clinton ........................39%
GW Bush.....................55%
Obama............... 8%
This helps explain the incompetence of this administration: ONLY 8% of them...have ever worked in private business!That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!And these people are trying to tell our big corporations...how to run their business? How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business...when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs...when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs. Or...as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Pass this on, because we'll NEVER see these facts...in the main stream media!!!
*************************************
Furthermore:
There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot. A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within sixmonths:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
<="FONT-SIZE: 24pt; COLOR: rgb(0,0,64)">Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%*************************************
And now..for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
*************************************
Check the last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet... who had worked in the private business sector...prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business...not a government job.
Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt....................38%
Taft.............................40%
Wilson ........................52%
Harding.......................49%
Coolidge......................48%
Hoover.........................42%
F. Roosevelt.................50%
Truman........................50%
Eisenhower..................57%
Kennedy.......................30%
Johnson.......................47%
Nixon............................53%
Ford.............................42%
Carter...........................32%
Reagan........................56%
GH Bush......................51%
Clinton ........................39%
GW Bush.....................55%
Obama............... 8%
This helps explain the incompetence of this administration: ONLY 8% of them...have ever worked in private business!That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!And these people are trying to tell our big corporations...how to run their business? How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business...when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs...when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs. Or...as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Pass this on, because we'll NEVER see these facts...in the main stream media!!!
The Worst ever
See what YOU think:
There are some gifted people who have the ability to put into words that which most of us are thinking. Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions.
The Architect of Destruction
There are some gifted people who have the ability to put into words that which most of us are thinking. Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions.
The Architect of Destruction
Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man
filled with resentment, anger, and disdain
for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most
hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to
manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps,
because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness
toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family
and mentors…it seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America . Rather it is the blackness
that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there
should be abiding pride and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep
appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our
sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most
patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The
Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful
rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with
pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday or someone
plays "taps" on a trumpet?
Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers
march-by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences
or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or
Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow
troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us
free.
He didn't have grandparents who told stories of
suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they
had for building a business and life for their
children.
filled with resentment, anger, and disdain
for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most
hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to
manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps,
because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness
toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family
and mentors…it seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America . Rather it is the blackness
that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there
should be abiding pride and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep
appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our
sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most
patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The
Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful
rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with
pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday or someone
plays "taps" on a trumpet?
Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers
march-by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences
or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or
Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow
troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us
free.
He didn't have grandparents who told stories of
suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they
had for building a business and life for their
children.
Away
from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part
of America
and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in
kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and
eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July
4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave
sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and
what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions
that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the
instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions
were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue
the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites
us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring,
complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the
U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud
that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector
of many.
Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate
into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements
as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or
to bolster his ego.
He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and
degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who
has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from
showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty
attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety
among the
people of America , rather than uniting us (even though he was presented
to us as the "Great Uniter").
He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and
ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept
on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to
be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing
opinions.
And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and
mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he
should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming
more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and
self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our
laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install
controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a
dictatorial form of power.
Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to
harm and hurt the people and this country.
· Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather
than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
·
Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can
cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!
Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of
cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than
building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America ,
and the epitome of a Demagogue.
© Maureen Scott
from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part
of America
and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in
kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and
eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July
4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave
sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and
what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions
that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the
instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions
were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue
the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites
us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring,
complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the
U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud
that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector
of many.
Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate
into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements
as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or
to bolster his ego.
He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and
degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who
has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from
showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty
attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety
among the
people of America , rather than uniting us (even though he was presented
to us as the "Great Uniter").
He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and
ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept
on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to
be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing
opinions.
And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and
mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he
should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming
more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and
self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our
laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install
controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a
dictatorial form of power.
Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to
harm and hurt the people and this country.
· Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather
than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
·
Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can
cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!
Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of
cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than
building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America ,
and the epitome of a Demagogue.
© Maureen Scott
Eric Holder: A More Dangerous Race-Card Hustler Than Al Sharpton
Source; http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2014/09/04/eric-holder-a-...
On Sept,4 2014 Larry Elder who happens to be a black columnist penned an article about Eric Holder. Under the fair usage for educational purposes here is that article;
It's one thing to watch race hustlers like the Rev. Al Sharpton bellowing, "No justice, no peace." But when the attorney general of the United States makes false but racially incendiary claims about today's alleged "pernicious racism," we are in uncharted territory.
Holder complains about different prison rates, different school expulsion rates and longer prison sentences for black boys and men compared to white boys and men. He equates "equal rights" with "equal results."
In Ferguson, Missouri, after announcing federal investigation into the cop-shooting death of an unarmed black teen, Holder said: "I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. ... I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me."
The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of "racism" on that highway has been investigated -- and debunked. Twice.
Numerous complaints of DWB -- Driving While Black -- were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring, and put their officers through, among other things, "sensitivity training." New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists' speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit.
The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead, they accused the researchers of using a "flawed methodology." Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn't it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No -- the facts did not fit the script.
The next year, state police "stop data" showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority -- almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So, amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the "flawed methodology" of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study's methodology "flawed."
Over 20 years ago, black liberal Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson said: "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations ... is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa." Holder, however, sees an America -- as to "race-relations" -- still mired in the 1950s.
On a plane about 20 years ago, I met a black man who told me he was nearing 100 years old. What is the secret, I asked, to a long and happy life? Tall and ramrod straight, he said: "I tell my granddaughters to greet everyone with a big smile and an outstretched hand for a handshake. But those young girls don't wanna hear nothing about no smile and no handshake. That generation ain't got no appreciation for how easy they got it."
Perhaps Holder feels guilty because he didn't do something more noble, like marching with MLK while braving attack dogs and water hoses. Perhaps Holder feels guilty because of his own personal success and fears the "people he left behind" will resent him if he doesn't sound empathetic.
Holder's victicrat mentality might also explain why rich blacks -- including, for time, Oprah Winfrey -- belonged to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ whose pastor denounces the very drive for upward mobility that made Oprah Winfrey Oprah Winfrey.
Why else would successful blacks pull up in their Lexus and BMW's to attend a church that denounces the work ethic that enabled them to drive nice cars, live in nice houses in nice, clean and safe neighborhoods? What sense does it make for a rich black man to listen to his pastor tell him how racism has held him back from becoming rich?
Those "left behind" need a message of hard work and accountability and of seizing the opportunities uniquely offered by the United States of America. In a 1997 Time/CNN poll, a majority of black teens called racism a "big problem." But 89 percent of black teens called racism a "small problem" or "not a problem at all" in their own lives. In fact, nearly twice as many black teens than white teens called "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" a bigger problem than racism.
Tell that to Mr. Holder.
On Sept,4 2014 Larry Elder who happens to be a black columnist penned an article about Eric Holder. Under the fair usage for educational purposes here is that article;
It's one thing to watch race hustlers like the Rev. Al Sharpton bellowing, "No justice, no peace." But when the attorney general of the United States makes false but racially incendiary claims about today's alleged "pernicious racism," we are in uncharted territory.
Holder complains about different prison rates, different school expulsion rates and longer prison sentences for black boys and men compared to white boys and men. He equates "equal rights" with "equal results."
In Ferguson, Missouri, after announcing federal investigation into the cop-shooting death of an unarmed black teen, Holder said: "I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. ... I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me."
The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of "racism" on that highway has been investigated -- and debunked. Twice.
Numerous complaints of DWB -- Driving While Black -- were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring, and put their officers through, among other things, "sensitivity training." New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists' speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit.
The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead, they accused the researchers of using a "flawed methodology." Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn't it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No -- the facts did not fit the script.
The next year, state police "stop data" showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority -- almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So, amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the "flawed methodology" of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study's methodology "flawed."
Over 20 years ago, black liberal Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson said: "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations ... is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa." Holder, however, sees an America -- as to "race-relations" -- still mired in the 1950s.
On a plane about 20 years ago, I met a black man who told me he was nearing 100 years old. What is the secret, I asked, to a long and happy life? Tall and ramrod straight, he said: "I tell my granddaughters to greet everyone with a big smile and an outstretched hand for a handshake. But those young girls don't wanna hear nothing about no smile and no handshake. That generation ain't got no appreciation for how easy they got it."
Perhaps Holder feels guilty because he didn't do something more noble, like marching with MLK while braving attack dogs and water hoses. Perhaps Holder feels guilty because of his own personal success and fears the "people he left behind" will resent him if he doesn't sound empathetic.
Holder's victicrat mentality might also explain why rich blacks -- including, for time, Oprah Winfrey -- belonged to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ whose pastor denounces the very drive for upward mobility that made Oprah Winfrey Oprah Winfrey.
Why else would successful blacks pull up in their Lexus and BMW's to attend a church that denounces the work ethic that enabled them to drive nice cars, live in nice houses in nice, clean and safe neighborhoods? What sense does it make for a rich black man to listen to his pastor tell him how racism has held him back from becoming rich?
Those "left behind" need a message of hard work and accountability and of seizing the opportunities uniquely offered by the United States of America. In a 1997 Time/CNN poll, a majority of black teens called racism a "big problem." But 89 percent of black teens called racism a "small problem" or "not a problem at all" in their own lives. In fact, nearly twice as many black teens than white teens called "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" a bigger problem than racism.
Tell that to Mr. Holder.
Pray for our “Armed Forces” 1/2 boy 1/2 man
If you read this, you WILL forward it on.
You just won't be able to stop yourself
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either.
You just won't be able to stop yourself
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away. He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and a 155mm howitzer.
He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.
He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.
He can march until he is told to stop, or stop until he is told to march.
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient.
He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.
He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.
If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.
He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.
He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.
He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.
He can march until he is told to stop, or stop until he is told to march.
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient.
He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.
He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.
If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.
He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.
He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all.
He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime.
He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.
He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime.
He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.
He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to' square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.
Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.
Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.
He has asked nothing in return, except
Our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.
And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.
Our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.
And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.
As you go to bed tonight, remember this shot. . ...
A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets.
A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets.
Prayer wheel for our military.... Please don't break it Please send this on after a short prayer.
Prayer Wheel
'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our ground troops in Afghanistan , sailors on ships, and airmen in the air, and for those in Iraq , Afghanistan and all foreign countries.
There is nothing attached....
This can be very powerful..
Prayer Wheel
'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our ground troops in Afghanistan , sailors on ships, and airmen in the air, and for those in Iraq , Afghanistan and all foreign countries.
There is nothing attached....
This can be very powerful..
Of all the gifts you could give a US Soldier, Sailor, Coastguardsman, Marine, or Airman, prayer is the very best one.
I can't break this one, sorry.
Pass it on to everyone and pray.
I can't break this one, sorry.
Pass it on to everyone and pray.
What The Left Can Learn From Alexander Hamilton
Jacobin | By Christian Parenti
This story was originally posted at Jacobin magazine.
Two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton was mortally wounded by then Vice President Aaron Burr in a duel at Weehawken, New Jersey. Their conflict, stemming from essays Hamilton had penned against Burr, was an episode in a larger clash between two political ideologies: that of Thomas Jefferson and the anti-Federalists, who argued for an agrarian economy and a weak central government, versus that of Hamilton and the Federalists, who championed a strong central state and an industrial economy.
In the American political imagination, Jefferson is rural, idealistic, and democratic, while Hamilton is urban, pessimistic, and authoritarian. So, too, on the US left, where Jefferson gets the better billing. Michael Hardt recently edited a sheaf of Jefferson’s writings for the left publisher Verso.Reading “Jefferson beyond Jefferson,” Hardt casts him as a theorist of “revolutionary transition.” We like Jefferson’s stirring words about “the tree of liberty” occasionally needing “the blood of patriots and tyrants,” and his worldview fits comfortably with a “small is beautiful” style localism. We recall Jefferson as a great democrat. When Tea Partiers echo his rhetoric, we dismiss it as a lamentable misunderstanding.
But in reality, Jefferson represented the most backward and fundamentally reactionary sector of the economy: large, patrimonial, slave-owning, agrarian elites who exported primary commodities and imported finished manufactured goods from Europe. He was a fabulously wealthy planter who lived in luxury paid for by slave labor. Worse yet, he raised slaves specifically for sale.
“I consider the labor of a breeding woman,” Jefferson wrote, “as no object, and that a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.”
Even if it could somehow be dislodged from the institution of slavery, Jefferson’s vision of a weak government and an export-based agrarian economy would have been the path of political fragmentation and economic underdevelopment. His romantic notions were a veil behind which lay ossified privilege.
Hamilton was alone among the “founding fathers” in understanding that the world was witnessing two revolutions simultaneously. One was the political transformation, embodied in the rise of republican government. The other was the economic rise of modern capitalism, with its globalizing networks of production, trade, and finance. Hamilton grasped the epochal importance of applied science and machinery as forces of production.
In the face of these changes, Hamilton created (and largely executed) a plan for government-led economic development along lines that would be followed in more recent times by many countries (particularly in East Asia) that have undergone rapid industrialization. His political mission was to create a state that could facilitate, encourage, and guide the process of economic change — a policy also known asdirigisme, although the expression never entered the American political lexicon the way its antonym, laissez-faire, did.
To be sure, Hamilton was living in the era of “bourgeois” revolutions and the state he was building was a capitalist state, complete with the oppressive apparatus that always involves. Hamilton did not oppose exploitation. Like most people of his age, he saw child labor as normal and defended the rights of creditors over debtors. But regarding slavery, he firmly and consistently opposed it and was a founder of theSociety for Manumission of Slaves. It was Hamilton — not Jefferson — who had the more progressive vision.
Even today, Hamilton’s ideas about state-led industrialization offer much. Consider the crisis of climate change. Alas, we do not have the luxury of making this an agenda item for our future post-capitalist assembly. Facing up to it demands getting off fossil fuels in a very short time frame. That requires a massive and immediate industrial transformation, which must be undertaken using the actually existing states and economies currently on hand. Such a project can only be led by the state — an institution that Hamilton’s writing and life’s work helps us to rethink.
Unfortunately, many environmental activists today instinctively avoid the state. They see government as part of the problem — as it undoubtedly is — but never as part of the solution. They do not seek to confront, reshape, and use state power; the idea of calling for regulation and public ownership, makes them uncomfortable.
And so green activism too often embodies the legacy of Jefferson’s antigovernment politics. It hinges on transforming individual behavior, or on making appeals to “corporate social responsibility.”
Hamilton’s work, by contrast, reveals the truth that for capital, there is no “outside of the state.” The state is the necessary but not sufficient pre-condition for capitalism’s development. There is no creative destruction, competition, innovation, and accumulation without the “shadow socialism” of the public sector and state planning. We may soon find that there is no potable water or breathable air without them, either.
At the heart of Hamilton’s thinking was a stark political fact — one that is now sometimes hard to recall. The newly created United States was a mess. Politically disorganized, economically underdeveloped, and militarily weak, its survival was in no way guaranteed.
All the more alarming was the international context. The world was dominated by the immense power of the British, French, and (admittedly declining) Spanish Empires. Hamilton saw that the colonists’ victory over Britain, won by the direct military intervention of France, would only be secured if the new nation built up its economy.
Hamilton learned the danger of weakness early on. Born of humble origins in the Caribbean, he was an “illegitimate” child and then orphaned at age thirteen. Taken in by friends, he found work as a shipping clerk. Having a prodigious intellectual talent, Hamilton also applied himself to study with fanatical discipline. Soon he was penning essays for the local press. One piece caught the attention of St. Croix notables, who in 1772 sent the young Hamilton to preparatory school in New Jersey and then to Kings College, now Columbia University.
In 1775, as conflict between British soldiers and colonial irregulars began, Hamilton joined the newly formed New York militia. Hamilton began studying artillery and then formed the New York Provincial Company of Artillery. Before long, Hamilton became Washington’s most important aide-de-camp and artillery, Hamilton’s forte, became crucial to Washington’s strategy. (Even then, the American style of warfare was capital intensive.)
Hamilton wanted to command troops in the field and disliked Washington, whom he found crass and dull. Washington nonetheless kept the young savant on as part of “the family,” as the general called his staff.
Hamilton’s time in the Continental Army included wintering at Valley Forge. It was an object lesson in the dangers of political decentralization and economic underdevelopment.
The Continental Congress, operating under the loose Articles of Confederation, would levy taxes on the states; only a fraction of the resources would be delivered, but Congress had little power to compel payment. As a result, soldiers died and went hungry, territory was lost, and the new nation gave signs of fragmenting when prominent leaders (including Jefferson) deserted Congress and Washington’s army for their respective state governments and militias.
All this shaped Hamilton’s politics. He saw his adopted nation as being in a similar position to himself — in search of strength, but profoundly weak — and he had a firm grasp on economic realities. Because Jefferson had slaves and a plantation, he could maintain the illusion of independence and write fetishistic peaens to the yeoman farmer while enjoying the luxury to which he had become accustomed. Hamilton operated with an acute sense of his own vulnerability. He depended on patrons throughout his career; he appreciated structures of power for what they were, and what they made possible, and developed the ability to adapt and graft himself on to them. Even his attraction to artillery (the mechanization of war) seems like a comment on the utility of power.
At the war’s end, Hamilton resigned his commission and studied law. Meanwhile, the country’s economy was in shambles. Officers and farmers were growing restive. Parts of the backcountry of North Carolina declared themselves an independent state, and a similar attempt at secession was made in Pennsylvania’s Wyoming Valley. By 1786-87, class tensions in western Massachusetts had boiled over in the form of Shays’ Rebellion: Armed and indebted farmers marched on the state government and were violently crushed by the militia.
In moments of despair, Hamilton predicted a future of interstate warfare and re-colonization.“A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations,” Hamilton wrote inFederalist No. 6,
who can seriously doubt, that if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests, as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.
Hamilton knew that economic recovery was the key to peace. In the same Federalistpaper, he wrote:“If SHAYS had not been a desperate debtor it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.” To prevent national disintegration and push the economy back into action, Hamilton sought to control the centrifugal forces of “faction” — a term which referred to both class and geographic conflict. He labored hard to draft and ratify a new Constitution and create a strong central government.
Recall the Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, federal law always trumps state and local laws.
In Federalist 11, Hamilton laid out the economic logic of a strong central state in terms of a defense against European imperialism:
If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By [creating] prohibitory regulations, extending, at the same time, throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other, for the privileges of our markets.
Here, Hamilton is outlining the central mechanism of economic nationalism: the state creates economic conditions; it does not merely react to them. Before the Revolution, Britain’s mercantilist policies sought to maintain captive markets and thereby enforced under-development on its American colonies. Britain had banned export to America “of any tools that might assist in manufacture of cotton, linen, wool, and silk.” None of that changed with independence. And Britain was soon harassing American trade, stopping and searching ships at sea, seizing American sailors as alleged deserters.
For Hamilton, the crucial components of real independence were industrialization led by a strong federal government, combined with a permanent military that could serve both political and economic functions — defending the new nation while driving and absorbing the output of a new manufacturing sector. (It was, in effect, military Keynesianism before the fact.)
After ratification of the Constitution in 1790, Hamilton was recruited by the Washington administration to be the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury. In this capacity, he issued a series of detailed economic reports to Congress outlining a program for the development of the US economy that rested on three core policies: federal assumption of state debts, creation of a national bank, and direct government support for domestic manufacturing.
The linchpin of his economic proposal was a system of public credit and a national money system with a government supported Bank of the United States at its center. “Public utility,” wrote Hamilton, “is more truly the object of public banks than private profit.” In 1790, three new bond issues backed by the Federal Government replaced the miscellany of various state and federal bonds that had structured the new nation’s debt. Early the following year, Congress chartered the Bank of the United States for twenty years. With that, the first two pieces of his system were in place.
But in all this, Hamilton faced the opposition of Jefferson and the Southern planter class. Comparative economic history shows that semi-feudal agricultural elites, like Jefferson’s Virginia squirearchy, hold back political and economic development. To paraphrase Perry Anderson, semi-feudal elites extract economic surplus from the immediate producers by customary forms of extra-economic violence and coercion; they do so by demanding labor services, deliveries in kind, or rents in cash, and preside over areas where free commodity exchange and labor mobility are relatively rare. They prefer stasis to change.
For Jefferson, this was expressed in his romantic praise of rural life: “Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” He condemned manufacturing as morally and politically corrosive:
While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work bench… let our work shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body.
Put differently, Jefferson feared the proletariat.
For Hamilton, conversely, national survival depended on industrialization. He pushed Congress to foster domestic manufacturing with a program known as “the American School” that had four central policies: 1) tariffs on imports; 2) direct subsidies, or “bounties,” for domestic manufacturers; 3) a partially public-owned national bank; 4) broad public investments in infrastructure, or “internal improvements,” like roads, canals, and ports.
The young Treasury Secretary’s most famous statement of his analysis is The Report on the Subject of Manufactures, submitted to Congress on December 5, 1791. It begins with a critique of the Physiocrats — a school of thought in France that Karl Marx would call “the true fathers of modern political economy.” They established a labor theory of value, but restricted its realm to agriculture. In their view, all other labor and economic activity was parasitic upon farming. They were pioneering but myopic. In their analysis, Marx said, “bourgeois society is given a feudal semblance.”
Hamilton’s critique of the Physiocrats was sharp and devastating. “It has been maintained, that Agriculture is, not only, the most productive, but the only productive species of industry,” he wrote.
The reality of this suggestion in either aspect, has, however, not been verified… It is very conceivable, that the labor of man alone laid out upon a work, requiring great skill and art to bring it to perfection, may be more productive, in value, than the labour of nature and man combined, when directed towards more simple operations and objects.
In dismantling the Physiocrats’ fixation with agriculture, Hamilton was also taking aim at slavery and the self-delusions of the plantation elite. The Southern elites were increasingly defensive of their “peculiar institution.” Vermont outlawed slavery when it broke away from New York in 1777. Pennsylvania severely restricted slavery in 1780, while Massachusetts abolished it outright in 1783.
In reaction, Southern politicians and writers concocted a series of elaborate but inconsistent defenses. They went from arguing that slavery was a necessary evil to proclaiming it as a positive good, with Southern agrarian society as the highest form of civilization. (From this unhinged doctrine would eventually flow the South’s suicidal project of secession and offensive war against the North.)
Next, The Report addressed the laissez-faire line associated with Adam Smith. “Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment, ” wrote Hamilton in a summary of this then-new doctrine; “whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require.”
He countered this with demands for protectionist policy, couched in arguments about what we would now call “uneven development”: “To maintain between the recent [industrial] establishments of one country and the long matured establishments of another country, a competition upon equal terms, both as to quality and price, is in most cases impracticable.”
To level the playing field, the weaker economy had to rely on“the extraordinary aid and protection of government.” And he pointed out that other governments aided their manufacturing sectors — the doctrines of British political economy notwithstanding.
Perhaps his most contemporary sounding defenses of an activist government had to do with failure and innovation. Hamilton argued that “it is of importance that the confidence of cautious sagacious capitalists both citizens and foreigners, should be excited,” and their fear of risk allayed by “a degree of countenance and support from government” so they might “be capable of overcoming the obstacles inseperable from first experiments.”
Deeper in The Report, Hamilton made a number of detailed policy recommendations. They included higher import duties on some finished products (and even, if necessary, the outright prohibition of some imports); lowering or removing duties and taxes on key raw materials; subsidies paid to whole sectors of industry; government-paid premiums for specific firms that excel at innovation and production; government assistance for the immigration of skilled workers; an almost patent–like style of artificial monopoly for the inventors and importers of new technology; the creation of national regulations for, and the regular inspection of, manufactured goods so as to improve quality; government facilitation of a single national money system; and public investment in roads and canals.
Pretty much all of this was achieved, despite Southern opposition — and it remains the basis for the growth of American capitalism.
Throughout The Report, Hamilton tried to assuage Southern fears by arguing that a rising tide lifts all boats. “If the Northern and middle states should be the principal scenes of such [manufacturing] establishments, they would immediately benefit the more southern [states], by creating a demand for… Timber, flax, Hemp, Cotton, Wool, raw silk, Indigo, iron, lead, furs, hides, skins and coals.”
And in time, his proposed tariffs would help pay for publicly funded infrastructure that would expand internal markets and lower the cost of exporting. “Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers,” Hamilton wrote “by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of a town.”
If the private sector could not consume enough to drive rapid industrialization, the public sector would. Since few export markets could absorb American manufactured goods, military procurement would created an artificial internal market for them. America’s nascent manufacturing sector relied heavily on military consumption — products associated with shipbuilding, weapons, munitions, uniforms, and food rations. This socialized demand would drive private sector accumulation, investment, wages, and thus consumption.
Hamilton drew up the blueprints for a planned economy — a capitalist economy, to be sure, but one that would be guided by a long-range sense of the country’s problems and potentials. And that was just what worried the reactionaries of his day. The line of development that Hamilton envisioned spelled the doom of a political economy based on slavery.
One of the few who was honest about this was North Carolina’s Nathaniel Macon, who a decade after Hamilton’s death, explained to a confused, young, canal-loving Southern politician: “If Congress can make canals, they can with more propriety emancipate.”
In the decades after Hamilton, the struggle between the forces of pro-industrial modernization and the forces of agrarian underdevelopment continued. Hamilton’s “American School” of economics had it successor in the “American System” of Henry Clay of Kentucky, with its package of policy ideas drawn from The Report: a high tariff, a national bank, public funding of infrastructure or “internal improvements.”
Clay and his supporters added a commitment to maintaining artificially high public land prices. This boosted the government revenue needed to fund land surveys, roads, canals, ports, and later railroads. High public land prices also benefitted eastern manufacturing, since cheap land would draw off labor and force up wages.
Ultimately, the American System was only partially realized and more often than not at the state level, as in the famous New York state-built Erie Canal. The developmentalist camp — the largely northern, urban, manufacturing and financially-oriented interests that followed Clay — ultimately coalesced into the Whigs, and then Lincoln and the Republican Party.
Only with war and the secession of southern states did the Hamiltonian-inspired agenda make real headway with passage of the Homestead Act, opening western lands to small farmers, and the Railroad Acts which, at government expense, set off construction of the transcontinental railroad.
This American dirigiste model has had a major impact on global history. As the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang has pointed out, every successful case of industrialization has used some version of the Hamiltonian model. A line runs directly from it to the postwar rise of the developmental states of East Asia. During Henry Clay’s heyday as John Quincy Adams’s Secretary of State, the German political economist Fredrich List — who would formulate the developmentalist theory of “infant industry” protection — moved to Pennsylvania where he soaked up the statist ideas of Hamilton and Clay.
Now Clay’s “American System” morphed into List’s more detailed “National System.” When he finally returned to Germany in the 1830s, List and others associated with the German “Historical School” of Economics rejected Adam Smith’s fixation on the individual as a category of analysis; they held that economies were based on nations and states.
In place of classical political economy’s “general laws,” the Historical School sought a theory based on national and historical specificity. (At the level of applied policy, this meant pushing for government support for railway construction and industrialization.) Their ideas were studied closely in Meji Japan, where a state-led project of land reform and industrialization began in the early 1870s. The other classicdirigiste economies of East Asian — Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and now China — have also relied heavily on List and the German Historical School.
In most of the world, the real story of capitalism is not the story of laissez-faire — a doctrine the strong impose upon the weak — nor a quaint story about egalitarian local economies, but the story of the state presiding over a mixed economy. Hamiltonian developmentalism — the unnamed ideology — is amoral, pragmatic, instrumentalist, and flexible.
So what is the lesson of this attenuated tale?
Like Hamilton, we face a profound crisis rooted in an economy that demands to beremade. The old redistributive agenda is not enough. Due to its dependence on the environmental curse of fossil fuels, the economy must also be significantly rebuiltaround a clean energy sector. And history is very clear on the implications: In capitalist society, moments of crisis and transformation have always involved an increased economic role for the state. We are entering one of those periods.
As the waters rise and the storms grow more intense, the state and the public sector will be called forth. What the state can or will become as it “returns” is an open question — or rather, open to being reshaped by pressure from social movements.
Unfortunately, American society is very far from facing the crisis. And a huge part of the problem is the Jeffersonian notion that “the government that governs best is the one that governs least.” While that is true as regards individual liberty, it is absolutely dangerous to think that way as regards the economy.
Source;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/alexander-hamilton-left_n_5731184.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
This story was originally posted at Jacobin magazine.
Two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton was mortally wounded by then Vice President Aaron Burr in a duel at Weehawken, New Jersey. Their conflict, stemming from essays Hamilton had penned against Burr, was an episode in a larger clash between two political ideologies: that of Thomas Jefferson and the anti-Federalists, who argued for an agrarian economy and a weak central government, versus that of Hamilton and the Federalists, who championed a strong central state and an industrial economy.
In the American political imagination, Jefferson is rural, idealistic, and democratic, while Hamilton is urban, pessimistic, and authoritarian. So, too, on the US left, where Jefferson gets the better billing. Michael Hardt recently edited a sheaf of Jefferson’s writings for the left publisher Verso.Reading “Jefferson beyond Jefferson,” Hardt casts him as a theorist of “revolutionary transition.” We like Jefferson’s stirring words about “the tree of liberty” occasionally needing “the blood of patriots and tyrants,” and his worldview fits comfortably with a “small is beautiful” style localism. We recall Jefferson as a great democrat. When Tea Partiers echo his rhetoric, we dismiss it as a lamentable misunderstanding.
But in reality, Jefferson represented the most backward and fundamentally reactionary sector of the economy: large, patrimonial, slave-owning, agrarian elites who exported primary commodities and imported finished manufactured goods from Europe. He was a fabulously wealthy planter who lived in luxury paid for by slave labor. Worse yet, he raised slaves specifically for sale.
“I consider the labor of a breeding woman,” Jefferson wrote, “as no object, and that a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.”
Even if it could somehow be dislodged from the institution of slavery, Jefferson’s vision of a weak government and an export-based agrarian economy would have been the path of political fragmentation and economic underdevelopment. His romantic notions were a veil behind which lay ossified privilege.
Hamilton was alone among the “founding fathers” in understanding that the world was witnessing two revolutions simultaneously. One was the political transformation, embodied in the rise of republican government. The other was the economic rise of modern capitalism, with its globalizing networks of production, trade, and finance. Hamilton grasped the epochal importance of applied science and machinery as forces of production.
In the face of these changes, Hamilton created (and largely executed) a plan for government-led economic development along lines that would be followed in more recent times by many countries (particularly in East Asia) that have undergone rapid industrialization. His political mission was to create a state that could facilitate, encourage, and guide the process of economic change — a policy also known asdirigisme, although the expression never entered the American political lexicon the way its antonym, laissez-faire, did.
To be sure, Hamilton was living in the era of “bourgeois” revolutions and the state he was building was a capitalist state, complete with the oppressive apparatus that always involves. Hamilton did not oppose exploitation. Like most people of his age, he saw child labor as normal and defended the rights of creditors over debtors. But regarding slavery, he firmly and consistently opposed it and was a founder of theSociety for Manumission of Slaves. It was Hamilton — not Jefferson — who had the more progressive vision.
Even today, Hamilton’s ideas about state-led industrialization offer much. Consider the crisis of climate change. Alas, we do not have the luxury of making this an agenda item for our future post-capitalist assembly. Facing up to it demands getting off fossil fuels in a very short time frame. That requires a massive and immediate industrial transformation, which must be undertaken using the actually existing states and economies currently on hand. Such a project can only be led by the state — an institution that Hamilton’s writing and life’s work helps us to rethink.
Unfortunately, many environmental activists today instinctively avoid the state. They see government as part of the problem — as it undoubtedly is — but never as part of the solution. They do not seek to confront, reshape, and use state power; the idea of calling for regulation and public ownership, makes them uncomfortable.
And so green activism too often embodies the legacy of Jefferson’s antigovernment politics. It hinges on transforming individual behavior, or on making appeals to “corporate social responsibility.”
Hamilton’s work, by contrast, reveals the truth that for capital, there is no “outside of the state.” The state is the necessary but not sufficient pre-condition for capitalism’s development. There is no creative destruction, competition, innovation, and accumulation without the “shadow socialism” of the public sector and state planning. We may soon find that there is no potable water or breathable air without them, either.
At the heart of Hamilton’s thinking was a stark political fact — one that is now sometimes hard to recall. The newly created United States was a mess. Politically disorganized, economically underdeveloped, and militarily weak, its survival was in no way guaranteed.
All the more alarming was the international context. The world was dominated by the immense power of the British, French, and (admittedly declining) Spanish Empires. Hamilton saw that the colonists’ victory over Britain, won by the direct military intervention of France, would only be secured if the new nation built up its economy.
Hamilton learned the danger of weakness early on. Born of humble origins in the Caribbean, he was an “illegitimate” child and then orphaned at age thirteen. Taken in by friends, he found work as a shipping clerk. Having a prodigious intellectual talent, Hamilton also applied himself to study with fanatical discipline. Soon he was penning essays for the local press. One piece caught the attention of St. Croix notables, who in 1772 sent the young Hamilton to preparatory school in New Jersey and then to Kings College, now Columbia University.
In 1775, as conflict between British soldiers and colonial irregulars began, Hamilton joined the newly formed New York militia. Hamilton began studying artillery and then formed the New York Provincial Company of Artillery. Before long, Hamilton became Washington’s most important aide-de-camp and artillery, Hamilton’s forte, became crucial to Washington’s strategy. (Even then, the American style of warfare was capital intensive.)
Hamilton wanted to command troops in the field and disliked Washington, whom he found crass and dull. Washington nonetheless kept the young savant on as part of “the family,” as the general called his staff.
Hamilton’s time in the Continental Army included wintering at Valley Forge. It was an object lesson in the dangers of political decentralization and economic underdevelopment.
The Continental Congress, operating under the loose Articles of Confederation, would levy taxes on the states; only a fraction of the resources would be delivered, but Congress had little power to compel payment. As a result, soldiers died and went hungry, territory was lost, and the new nation gave signs of fragmenting when prominent leaders (including Jefferson) deserted Congress and Washington’s army for their respective state governments and militias.
All this shaped Hamilton’s politics. He saw his adopted nation as being in a similar position to himself — in search of strength, but profoundly weak — and he had a firm grasp on economic realities. Because Jefferson had slaves and a plantation, he could maintain the illusion of independence and write fetishistic peaens to the yeoman farmer while enjoying the luxury to which he had become accustomed. Hamilton operated with an acute sense of his own vulnerability. He depended on patrons throughout his career; he appreciated structures of power for what they were, and what they made possible, and developed the ability to adapt and graft himself on to them. Even his attraction to artillery (the mechanization of war) seems like a comment on the utility of power.
At the war’s end, Hamilton resigned his commission and studied law. Meanwhile, the country’s economy was in shambles. Officers and farmers were growing restive. Parts of the backcountry of North Carolina declared themselves an independent state, and a similar attempt at secession was made in Pennsylvania’s Wyoming Valley. By 1786-87, class tensions in western Massachusetts had boiled over in the form of Shays’ Rebellion: Armed and indebted farmers marched on the state government and were violently crushed by the militia.
In moments of despair, Hamilton predicted a future of interstate warfare and re-colonization.“A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations,” Hamilton wrote inFederalist No. 6,
who can seriously doubt, that if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests, as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.
Hamilton knew that economic recovery was the key to peace. In the same Federalistpaper, he wrote:“If SHAYS had not been a desperate debtor it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.” To prevent national disintegration and push the economy back into action, Hamilton sought to control the centrifugal forces of “faction” — a term which referred to both class and geographic conflict. He labored hard to draft and ratify a new Constitution and create a strong central government.
Recall the Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, federal law always trumps state and local laws.
In Federalist 11, Hamilton laid out the economic logic of a strong central state in terms of a defense against European imperialism:
If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By [creating] prohibitory regulations, extending, at the same time, throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other, for the privileges of our markets.
Here, Hamilton is outlining the central mechanism of economic nationalism: the state creates economic conditions; it does not merely react to them. Before the Revolution, Britain’s mercantilist policies sought to maintain captive markets and thereby enforced under-development on its American colonies. Britain had banned export to America “of any tools that might assist in manufacture of cotton, linen, wool, and silk.” None of that changed with independence. And Britain was soon harassing American trade, stopping and searching ships at sea, seizing American sailors as alleged deserters.
For Hamilton, the crucial components of real independence were industrialization led by a strong federal government, combined with a permanent military that could serve both political and economic functions — defending the new nation while driving and absorbing the output of a new manufacturing sector. (It was, in effect, military Keynesianism before the fact.)
After ratification of the Constitution in 1790, Hamilton was recruited by the Washington administration to be the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury. In this capacity, he issued a series of detailed economic reports to Congress outlining a program for the development of the US economy that rested on three core policies: federal assumption of state debts, creation of a national bank, and direct government support for domestic manufacturing.
The linchpin of his economic proposal was a system of public credit and a national money system with a government supported Bank of the United States at its center. “Public utility,” wrote Hamilton, “is more truly the object of public banks than private profit.” In 1790, three new bond issues backed by the Federal Government replaced the miscellany of various state and federal bonds that had structured the new nation’s debt. Early the following year, Congress chartered the Bank of the United States for twenty years. With that, the first two pieces of his system were in place.
But in all this, Hamilton faced the opposition of Jefferson and the Southern planter class. Comparative economic history shows that semi-feudal agricultural elites, like Jefferson’s Virginia squirearchy, hold back political and economic development. To paraphrase Perry Anderson, semi-feudal elites extract economic surplus from the immediate producers by customary forms of extra-economic violence and coercion; they do so by demanding labor services, deliveries in kind, or rents in cash, and preside over areas where free commodity exchange and labor mobility are relatively rare. They prefer stasis to change.
For Jefferson, this was expressed in his romantic praise of rural life: “Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” He condemned manufacturing as morally and politically corrosive:
While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work bench… let our work shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body.
Put differently, Jefferson feared the proletariat.
For Hamilton, conversely, national survival depended on industrialization. He pushed Congress to foster domestic manufacturing with a program known as “the American School” that had four central policies: 1) tariffs on imports; 2) direct subsidies, or “bounties,” for domestic manufacturers; 3) a partially public-owned national bank; 4) broad public investments in infrastructure, or “internal improvements,” like roads, canals, and ports.
The young Treasury Secretary’s most famous statement of his analysis is The Report on the Subject of Manufactures, submitted to Congress on December 5, 1791. It begins with a critique of the Physiocrats — a school of thought in France that Karl Marx would call “the true fathers of modern political economy.” They established a labor theory of value, but restricted its realm to agriculture. In their view, all other labor and economic activity was parasitic upon farming. They were pioneering but myopic. In their analysis, Marx said, “bourgeois society is given a feudal semblance.”
Hamilton’s critique of the Physiocrats was sharp and devastating. “It has been maintained, that Agriculture is, not only, the most productive, but the only productive species of industry,” he wrote.
The reality of this suggestion in either aspect, has, however, not been verified… It is very conceivable, that the labor of man alone laid out upon a work, requiring great skill and art to bring it to perfection, may be more productive, in value, than the labour of nature and man combined, when directed towards more simple operations and objects.
In dismantling the Physiocrats’ fixation with agriculture, Hamilton was also taking aim at slavery and the self-delusions of the plantation elite. The Southern elites were increasingly defensive of their “peculiar institution.” Vermont outlawed slavery when it broke away from New York in 1777. Pennsylvania severely restricted slavery in 1780, while Massachusetts abolished it outright in 1783.
In reaction, Southern politicians and writers concocted a series of elaborate but inconsistent defenses. They went from arguing that slavery was a necessary evil to proclaiming it as a positive good, with Southern agrarian society as the highest form of civilization. (From this unhinged doctrine would eventually flow the South’s suicidal project of secession and offensive war against the North.)
Next, The Report addressed the laissez-faire line associated with Adam Smith. “Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment, ” wrote Hamilton in a summary of this then-new doctrine; “whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require.”
He countered this with demands for protectionist policy, couched in arguments about what we would now call “uneven development”: “To maintain between the recent [industrial] establishments of one country and the long matured establishments of another country, a competition upon equal terms, both as to quality and price, is in most cases impracticable.”
To level the playing field, the weaker economy had to rely on“the extraordinary aid and protection of government.” And he pointed out that other governments aided their manufacturing sectors — the doctrines of British political economy notwithstanding.
Perhaps his most contemporary sounding defenses of an activist government had to do with failure and innovation. Hamilton argued that “it is of importance that the confidence of cautious sagacious capitalists both citizens and foreigners, should be excited,” and their fear of risk allayed by “a degree of countenance and support from government” so they might “be capable of overcoming the obstacles inseperable from first experiments.”
Deeper in The Report, Hamilton made a number of detailed policy recommendations. They included higher import duties on some finished products (and even, if necessary, the outright prohibition of some imports); lowering or removing duties and taxes on key raw materials; subsidies paid to whole sectors of industry; government-paid premiums for specific firms that excel at innovation and production; government assistance for the immigration of skilled workers; an almost patent–like style of artificial monopoly for the inventors and importers of new technology; the creation of national regulations for, and the regular inspection of, manufactured goods so as to improve quality; government facilitation of a single national money system; and public investment in roads and canals.
Pretty much all of this was achieved, despite Southern opposition — and it remains the basis for the growth of American capitalism.
Throughout The Report, Hamilton tried to assuage Southern fears by arguing that a rising tide lifts all boats. “If the Northern and middle states should be the principal scenes of such [manufacturing] establishments, they would immediately benefit the more southern [states], by creating a demand for… Timber, flax, Hemp, Cotton, Wool, raw silk, Indigo, iron, lead, furs, hides, skins and coals.”
And in time, his proposed tariffs would help pay for publicly funded infrastructure that would expand internal markets and lower the cost of exporting. “Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers,” Hamilton wrote “by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of a town.”
If the private sector could not consume enough to drive rapid industrialization, the public sector would. Since few export markets could absorb American manufactured goods, military procurement would created an artificial internal market for them. America’s nascent manufacturing sector relied heavily on military consumption — products associated with shipbuilding, weapons, munitions, uniforms, and food rations. This socialized demand would drive private sector accumulation, investment, wages, and thus consumption.
Hamilton drew up the blueprints for a planned economy — a capitalist economy, to be sure, but one that would be guided by a long-range sense of the country’s problems and potentials. And that was just what worried the reactionaries of his day. The line of development that Hamilton envisioned spelled the doom of a political economy based on slavery.
One of the few who was honest about this was North Carolina’s Nathaniel Macon, who a decade after Hamilton’s death, explained to a confused, young, canal-loving Southern politician: “If Congress can make canals, they can with more propriety emancipate.”
In the decades after Hamilton, the struggle between the forces of pro-industrial modernization and the forces of agrarian underdevelopment continued. Hamilton’s “American School” of economics had it successor in the “American System” of Henry Clay of Kentucky, with its package of policy ideas drawn from The Report: a high tariff, a national bank, public funding of infrastructure or “internal improvements.”
Clay and his supporters added a commitment to maintaining artificially high public land prices. This boosted the government revenue needed to fund land surveys, roads, canals, ports, and later railroads. High public land prices also benefitted eastern manufacturing, since cheap land would draw off labor and force up wages.
Ultimately, the American System was only partially realized and more often than not at the state level, as in the famous New York state-built Erie Canal. The developmentalist camp — the largely northern, urban, manufacturing and financially-oriented interests that followed Clay — ultimately coalesced into the Whigs, and then Lincoln and the Republican Party.
Only with war and the secession of southern states did the Hamiltonian-inspired agenda make real headway with passage of the Homestead Act, opening western lands to small farmers, and the Railroad Acts which, at government expense, set off construction of the transcontinental railroad.
This American dirigiste model has had a major impact on global history. As the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang has pointed out, every successful case of industrialization has used some version of the Hamiltonian model. A line runs directly from it to the postwar rise of the developmental states of East Asia. During Henry Clay’s heyday as John Quincy Adams’s Secretary of State, the German political economist Fredrich List — who would formulate the developmentalist theory of “infant industry” protection — moved to Pennsylvania where he soaked up the statist ideas of Hamilton and Clay.
Now Clay’s “American System” morphed into List’s more detailed “National System.” When he finally returned to Germany in the 1830s, List and others associated with the German “Historical School” of Economics rejected Adam Smith’s fixation on the individual as a category of analysis; they held that economies were based on nations and states.
In place of classical political economy’s “general laws,” the Historical School sought a theory based on national and historical specificity. (At the level of applied policy, this meant pushing for government support for railway construction and industrialization.) Their ideas were studied closely in Meji Japan, where a state-led project of land reform and industrialization began in the early 1870s. The other classicdirigiste economies of East Asian — Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and now China — have also relied heavily on List and the German Historical School.
In most of the world, the real story of capitalism is not the story of laissez-faire — a doctrine the strong impose upon the weak — nor a quaint story about egalitarian local economies, but the story of the state presiding over a mixed economy. Hamiltonian developmentalism — the unnamed ideology — is amoral, pragmatic, instrumentalist, and flexible.
So what is the lesson of this attenuated tale?
Like Hamilton, we face a profound crisis rooted in an economy that demands to beremade. The old redistributive agenda is not enough. Due to its dependence on the environmental curse of fossil fuels, the economy must also be significantly rebuiltaround a clean energy sector. And history is very clear on the implications: In capitalist society, moments of crisis and transformation have always involved an increased economic role for the state. We are entering one of those periods.
As the waters rise and the storms grow more intense, the state and the public sector will be called forth. What the state can or will become as it “returns” is an open question — or rather, open to being reshaped by pressure from social movements.
Unfortunately, American society is very far from facing the crisis. And a huge part of the problem is the Jeffersonian notion that “the government that governs best is the one that governs least.” While that is true as regards individual liberty, it is absolutely dangerous to think that way as regards the economy.
Source;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/alexander-hamilton-left_n_5731184.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Today I’m outing myself as a liberal: a classical liberal.
Written by Allen West on August 25, 2014
Last week I had the pleasure of speaking at two Eagle Forum events in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia — it was my first time in the “City of Champions” — Steel City Pittsburgh. After those two venues I was invited to the Michigan GOP State Convention in Novi. It was a true honor to meet so many great folks and reunite with those I’d met previously at Spring Arbor University, Jackson, and at the Romeo TEA Party. There was certainly plenty of energy and enthusiasm in the convention hall and floor as candidates and their supporters rallied the delegates for support. The Friday night Christian Coalition dinner was really awesome, where we wholeheartedly felt the influence of many black pastors in attendance.
However, what stuck in my mind was this phenomenon of “conservatism.” Everyone was vying for the esteemed title of “conservative.” Some candidates were claiming they were more conservative than this or that other one. As I departed Saturday afternoon to head back home, Sitting in the Detroit Airport, I wondered if I had asked 100 people, could they have been able to explain conservatism?
First of all, let’s establish this point: modern conservatism is classical liberalism as developed by English political philosopher John Locke. His basic principles were the personal rights of life, liberty, and property. Clearly, today’s “post modern liberal” has nothing in common with John Locke. Today’s liberalism has more in common with Marxism/progressivism/socialism — but as with all things Leftist, the lexicon is changed in order to mask true identity and intentions.
So Thomas Jefferson took Locke’s principles and revised them to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to the progressive socialists’ guarantee of happiness).
The point is that conservatism is a philosophy of governance which advocates and promotes individuals and their rights — as opposed to collective group rights, mind you. Conservatism is a political ideology that is not dependent upon political party, but is defined by principle. Locke supported the idea of the social contract which means government is entrusted by the people with certain powers for their protection. Jefferson referred to this in the Declaration of Independence as the “consent of the governed” — hence why we have representative government.
Conservative principles are rooted in our foundational documents the Declaration and Constitution — by way of limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty, free market economy, and national security (common defense). I would add a sixth principle of traditional family values.
Now, those principles should be guides in the creation of policy by which this nation is supposed to be governed. Case in point: common core was a big issue at the Michigan GOP convention — which we have written about here. I oppose common core because I am a conservative and therefore do not support government education standards. It is not an enumerated power of the federal government. After all, why do we have local school boards if the federal government should take a top down direct approach?
No conservative would ever support a program such as common core. Standards in education are vital but should be developed from the state and local levels — that reflects the conscience of a conservative. The federal government’s role is to ensure that every child — American and legal immigrant — has an equal access to a quality education which means supporting choices in education and not cronyism by way of teachers unions. Conservatives deplore economic cronyism because it is antithetical to free market/free enterprise.
Furthermore, common core was never presented as policy to be debated within the House of Representatives or Senate. It was never developed in a legislative committee and presented before the elected representatives of the people — therefore it is inconsistent with the concept of “consent of the governed.” As a matter of fact, it is being used as a tool to bribe states into receive federal financial assistance for education — which could also be considered blackmail.
To put conservatism in a simple analogy, take for example Booker T. Washington’s three pronged agenda of education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance — that is the essence of conservative thought; setting the conditions for the pursuit of happiness of individual American citizens. It is all about their unalienable rights.
When government operates under the guiding principles of conservatism, you have growth, opportunity, and promise — an equality of opportunity, not the progressive socialist mantra of equality of outcomes. And government advances policies that seek the economic empowerment for the individual, not their economic enslavement by way of the bribery or personal largess that retards the individual’s will and determination — it takes away the desire to pursue happiness as they await their guarantee.
When the government operates within its prescribed constitutional roles and responsibilities, it will be fiscally responsible – it must be. And if government is fiscally responsible, it will promote individual sovereignty and in so doing advance education, ingenuity, innovation, and investment — since government is not usurping individuals’ financial resources. If that is the case, you have a thriving free market economy — not a government spending-based economy.
However, in the end, we must keep Americans safe and that means focusing on the number one priority of the federal government — the common defense. Conservatives believe in peace through strength, not nation building and spreading democracy. We prefer reducing the conditions under which evil can thrive so to ensure liberty can actually take root — but we don’t believe it should be forced.
Lastly, yep, we support life, because life is the first of the unalienable rights and life is created by one man and one woman, the American family. It does not mean we don’t support those who believe their “pursuit of happiness” may be with someone of the same sex — but we don’t condone destroying a fundamental institution to accommodate a small collective group.
Simple, and to the point, that is what conservatism is, and it has been time tested and always proven best for a nation. Its opposition, progressive socialism, has never been successful, so why are we undergoing this “fundamental transformation” in America? It’s simple, our education system has been taken over by progressives who don’t teach our children the founding philosophy of governance of America — classical liberalism, conservatism.
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/today-im-outing-liberal-classical-liberal/#pt17hEPLsftLZt9z.99
Please see our Tab on the New Federalist Papers!
Last week I had the pleasure of speaking at two Eagle Forum events in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia — it was my first time in the “City of Champions” — Steel City Pittsburgh. After those two venues I was invited to the Michigan GOP State Convention in Novi. It was a true honor to meet so many great folks and reunite with those I’d met previously at Spring Arbor University, Jackson, and at the Romeo TEA Party. There was certainly plenty of energy and enthusiasm in the convention hall and floor as candidates and their supporters rallied the delegates for support. The Friday night Christian Coalition dinner was really awesome, where we wholeheartedly felt the influence of many black pastors in attendance.
However, what stuck in my mind was this phenomenon of “conservatism.” Everyone was vying for the esteemed title of “conservative.” Some candidates were claiming they were more conservative than this or that other one. As I departed Saturday afternoon to head back home, Sitting in the Detroit Airport, I wondered if I had asked 100 people, could they have been able to explain conservatism?
First of all, let’s establish this point: modern conservatism is classical liberalism as developed by English political philosopher John Locke. His basic principles were the personal rights of life, liberty, and property. Clearly, today’s “post modern liberal” has nothing in common with John Locke. Today’s liberalism has more in common with Marxism/progressivism/socialism — but as with all things Leftist, the lexicon is changed in order to mask true identity and intentions.
So Thomas Jefferson took Locke’s principles and revised them to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to the progressive socialists’ guarantee of happiness).
The point is that conservatism is a philosophy of governance which advocates and promotes individuals and their rights — as opposed to collective group rights, mind you. Conservatism is a political ideology that is not dependent upon political party, but is defined by principle. Locke supported the idea of the social contract which means government is entrusted by the people with certain powers for their protection. Jefferson referred to this in the Declaration of Independence as the “consent of the governed” — hence why we have representative government.
Conservative principles are rooted in our foundational documents the Declaration and Constitution — by way of limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty, free market economy, and national security (common defense). I would add a sixth principle of traditional family values.
Now, those principles should be guides in the creation of policy by which this nation is supposed to be governed. Case in point: common core was a big issue at the Michigan GOP convention — which we have written about here. I oppose common core because I am a conservative and therefore do not support government education standards. It is not an enumerated power of the federal government. After all, why do we have local school boards if the federal government should take a top down direct approach?
No conservative would ever support a program such as common core. Standards in education are vital but should be developed from the state and local levels — that reflects the conscience of a conservative. The federal government’s role is to ensure that every child — American and legal immigrant — has an equal access to a quality education which means supporting choices in education and not cronyism by way of teachers unions. Conservatives deplore economic cronyism because it is antithetical to free market/free enterprise.
Furthermore, common core was never presented as policy to be debated within the House of Representatives or Senate. It was never developed in a legislative committee and presented before the elected representatives of the people — therefore it is inconsistent with the concept of “consent of the governed.” As a matter of fact, it is being used as a tool to bribe states into receive federal financial assistance for education — which could also be considered blackmail.
To put conservatism in a simple analogy, take for example Booker T. Washington’s three pronged agenda of education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance — that is the essence of conservative thought; setting the conditions for the pursuit of happiness of individual American citizens. It is all about their unalienable rights.
When government operates under the guiding principles of conservatism, you have growth, opportunity, and promise — an equality of opportunity, not the progressive socialist mantra of equality of outcomes. And government advances policies that seek the economic empowerment for the individual, not their economic enslavement by way of the bribery or personal largess that retards the individual’s will and determination — it takes away the desire to pursue happiness as they await their guarantee.
When the government operates within its prescribed constitutional roles and responsibilities, it will be fiscally responsible – it must be. And if government is fiscally responsible, it will promote individual sovereignty and in so doing advance education, ingenuity, innovation, and investment — since government is not usurping individuals’ financial resources. If that is the case, you have a thriving free market economy — not a government spending-based economy.
However, in the end, we must keep Americans safe and that means focusing on the number one priority of the federal government — the common defense. Conservatives believe in peace through strength, not nation building and spreading democracy. We prefer reducing the conditions under which evil can thrive so to ensure liberty can actually take root — but we don’t believe it should be forced.
Lastly, yep, we support life, because life is the first of the unalienable rights and life is created by one man and one woman, the American family. It does not mean we don’t support those who believe their “pursuit of happiness” may be with someone of the same sex — but we don’t condone destroying a fundamental institution to accommodate a small collective group.
Simple, and to the point, that is what conservatism is, and it has been time tested and always proven best for a nation. Its opposition, progressive socialism, has never been successful, so why are we undergoing this “fundamental transformation” in America? It’s simple, our education system has been taken over by progressives who don’t teach our children the founding philosophy of governance of America — classical liberalism, conservatism.
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/today-im-outing-liberal-classical-liberal/#pt17hEPLsftLZt9z.99
Please see our Tab on the New Federalist Papers!
NEWSWEEK's Last Printed Publication
WOW!!!!!
I guess this news is better late than never....too bad there were not enough who understood his worthlessness sooner!!!
The liberal Newsweek Magazine is going out of business but not before it attacks the President. Wonderful story!
This is quite an article, even more so when you consider that NEWSWEEK finally had the guts to admit it. WOW!
Newsweek COVER!!! It is their last cover before they fold. Also read the article at the end. AMAZING!!!
Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest
Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting
to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media...
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist - Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and
test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and
in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the
entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling
associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual terrorist who
served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar. We have no
documentation for any of his claims. He may well be the greatest hoax in history.
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no
white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers,
would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with
protesters against various American injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -
held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they
are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if
these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist
policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's
affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have
noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for
the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive
qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over
and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own
powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.
http://theweek.com/article/index/232260/newsweeks-anti-obama-cover-story-has-the-magazine-lost-all-credibility
I guess this news is better late than never....too bad there were not enough who understood his worthlessness sooner!!!
The liberal Newsweek Magazine is going out of business but not before it attacks the President. Wonderful story!
This is quite an article, even more so when you consider that NEWSWEEK finally had the guts to admit it. WOW!
Newsweek COVER!!! It is their last cover before they fold. Also read the article at the end. AMAZING!!!
Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest
Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting
to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media...
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist - Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and
test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and
in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the
entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling
associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual terrorist who
served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar. We have no
documentation for any of his claims. He may well be the greatest hoax in history.
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no
white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers,
would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with
protesters against various American injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -
held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they
are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if
these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist
policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's
affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have
noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for
the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive
qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over
and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own
powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.
http://theweek.com/article/index/232260/newsweeks-anti-obama-cover-story-has-the-magazine-lost-all-credibility
How Community Organizing Busted A Union And Sparked An Education Revolution
Disclaimer; Posted under fair usage act for educational purposes. Full article can be found at; http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/18/how-community-organizing-busted-a-union-and-sparked-an-education-revolution/
By Joy PullmannAUGUST 18, 2014
Good teachers are the most important thing a school can give kids. Thanks to its conservative school board, this Colorado district is leading the nation in rethinking how to get them.
Karin Piper wasn’t aiming to bust a union when she asked her Douglas County, Colorado school board to hold contract negotiations in public. Back in 2012, the mother of three was just tired of all the gossip flying around Facebook and play groups.
“If you had questions about what happening behind closed doors, then you didn’t like teachers,” Piper said. “It was really difficult to ferret out who was speaking the truth.”
The local teachers union contract was then about to expire. After a conservative school board majority that had arrived in 2009 was re-elected in 2011, the union was getting antsy about agenda items that included the nation’s first district-run vouchers program, paying teachers market rates, and refusing to turn over taxpayer dollars for the union’s political activities.
In 2012, “I was up a lot at night,” said Douglas County Superintendent Liz Fagen, whom the board hired to put their trailblazing ideas into action. Piper says some desperados even publicly noted which school Fagen’s child attended—implying a threat to her safety.
Once free of the union, Douglas County could experiment with free-market ideas that most conservative school board members—where they exist—only dream about.
When 300 blue-shirt-wearing union members showed up at a board meeting chanting “This is what democracy looks like” and complaining vouchers and merit pay would “starve public education,” the four conservative board members began to consider dropping the union contract entirely. But open negotiations made that crazy-seeming idea a reality. It led to public discoveries that union money and activity in Douglas County—as everywhere else—went more to political activities than instructional improvements. Once that happened, the board began to consider, and then follow through on, ending its union contract.
“What we have been able to do and the speed at which we have been able to do it directly results from not having a union contract, because with a union everything is a compromise position,” says Fagen, a quick-speaking mother of two who looks to be about five feet, two inches tall.
Once free of the union, Douglas County could experiment with free-market ideas that most conservative school board members—where they exist—only dream about. If its experiments go well, it offers a template both for propelling conservatives into education, which is largely a liberal playground even in K-12, and for what such leaders might do when they get there.
Supply And Demand: A Novel Concept for TeachersDougCo has gotten the most national attention for proposing the nation’s first district-run vouchers program (it’s on hold, awaiting a Colorado Supreme Court ruling this fall), but Fagen said choosing to pay teachers market rates has been far more internally divisive.
Replacing the worst 5 to 7 percent of teachers with merely average-quality teachers would increase U.S. economic output by $112 trillion over the lifetimes of the rising generation.
The research demonstrating a teacher’s importance has only compounded. Teaching quality is the single most important factor a school controls that affects children, for better or for worse. A widely noted 2012 study that tracked 2.5 million children over 20 years found that teacher quality affects teen pregnancy rates, student achievement, and kids’ lifetime earnings. Replacing a poor teacher with just an average one would raise a classroom of students’ lifetime earnings by approximately $266,000. Economist Eric Hanushek has estimated that replacing the worst 5 to 7 percent of teachers with merely average-quality teachers would increase U.S. economic output by $112 trillion—yes, trillion with a T—over the lifetimes of the rising generation. It is almost impossible to fathom the worldwide benefits, which extend far beyond economic improvements.
Despite the massive consequences of hiring top teachers, almost no school district pays teachers according to quality or its need for particular skills. They typically pay according to union-preferred criteria known as “step-and-lane,” where two factors determine pay: The number of years a teacher has worked in the school district, and the number of credentials she has amassed. This pay scale is at the heart of two lawsuits raging in California and New York, which claim--correctly—that it sends the worst teachers to the lowest-performing students in poor communities who need good teachers most.
Only governments hire without regard to employee performance, because businesses that face competition can’t afford to. When he worked in the private sector, for companies such as Microsoft and General Electric, DougCo schools’ human resources director Brian Cesare could look at Labor Department data or gossip with colleagues to triangulate the going rates for certain positions. When he came to Douglas County, he couldn’t do that. No one had any idea what the market rate was for a school speech therapist. There was no market.
Given the sheer number of people public schools employ, that’s an amazing statement. At 63,000 students and 7,000 employees, Douglas County is Colorado’s third-largest school district. Like many other districts, it the largest local employer. If it were a business, Douglas County would be in a category with the biggest 0.007 percent of U.S. employers, if one calculates using Census Bureau data.
Self-Worth Versus Market ValueSeated at a conference table in Fagen’s office, Cesare ran his finger down a chart, noting that Douglas County hires for 72 distinct positions, and all require different training and skills, yet its union contract forbade recognizing that reality when attracting applicants. Open positions for elementary ed were always flooded with applicants, but school principals were lucky to get one applicant for a special-education opening.
‘I could earn $55,000 from [global agriculture conglomerate] Cargill starting out, or $31,000 as a teacher, where I would have to choose between buying a microwave and a vacuum.’
This severely hampered DougCo’s ability to find quality teachers. For one, a pay schedule means that people who make more than they’re worth are less likely to move on because they can’t get a better offer anywhere else. Conversely, people who earn less than they’re worth are more likely to move.
Further, bright college students have many career options. Fagan, who was once a pre-med student and graduated with a chemistry major, knows their dilemma: “I could earn $55,000 from [global agriculture conglomerate] Cargill starting out, or $31,000 as a teacher, where I would have to choose between buying a microwave and a vacuum.”
Since there was no market data available, Cesare tried to triangulate using what else he could find. He started calling principals and asking them to rank their job openings, from easiest-to-fill positions to hardest. In 2012, Douglas County unveiled a new pay scale with five salary ranges, or “bands.” Each of the district’s 72 positions fit into one band. In the bottom pay bracket were positions such as second- through fifth-grade teachers and physical education teachers. They can earn between $32,000 and $60,000 annually in base pay (which doesn’t include performance bonuses). The top bracket includes speech pathologists and school psychologists. They can earn between $45,000 and $94,000 in base pay.
2012 was the first year Douglas County had more applicants than special education positions. The next year, the district had enough information to expand the pay scale to six bands. Cesare thinks they can soon field ten.
The district had to field hundreds of angry teachers offended at receiving a label suggesting their work was worth less money than that of the teacher in the next classroom.
New teachers now start off at the bottom of the range for their job title, and as they demonstrate student achievement and meet other professional goals, they can earn more. Existing employees received no salary cut, but get different annual raises that gradually on- or off-ramp them into the designated salary range for their position and job performance. Someone already earning too much for her job title and performance might get consecutive 1 percent annual raises, while someone earning too little for her job title and performance could get annual pay raises of as much as 8 percent or more.This, even more than dropping the union contract or starting a voucher program, made her district explode, Fagen says.
“People in general associate their self-worth with what they make,” she noted. The district had to field hundreds of angry teachers offended at receiving a label suggesting their work was worth less money than that of the teacher in the next classroom. The year the new pay scale was implemented, approximately 13 percent of teachers left the district, which was nearly 100 more teachers than had left the previous year. The next year, 2013, 380 teachers left, or nearly 12 percent. All these are still below the statewide teacher turnover rate, which was 17 percent in 2013, according to the Colorado Department of Education.
Return of The Union, The tumult also gave an opening for the spurned union local to mount a divisive campaign against the district’s four conservative school board members. It backed four challengers for their positions and started throwing up placards and legal complaints. There was even a documentary film. The accusations ran the gamut, from screeds against “corporate reform,” which stem from union antipathy to market forces, to “how can you value one kind of teacher over another? Isn’t my kindergarten teacher as valuable as your math teacher?” said Ben DeGrow, an education policy analyst at the Denver-based Independence Institute. “They don’t understand economics, but the emotion appealed to the soccer moms.”
Karin Piper wasn’t aiming to bust a union when she asked her Douglas County, Colorado school board to hold contract negotiations in public. Back in 2012, the mother of three was just tired of all the gossip flying around Facebook and play groups.
“If you had questions about what happening behind closed doors, then you didn’t like teachers,” Piper said. “It was really difficult to ferret out who was speaking the truth.”
The local teachers union contract was then about to expire. After a conservative school board majority that had arrived in 2009 was re-elected in 2011, the union was getting antsy about agenda items that included the nation’s first district-run vouchers program, paying teachers market rates, and refusing to turn over taxpayer dollars for the union’s political activities.
In 2012, “I was up a lot at night,” said Douglas County Superintendent Liz Fagen, whom the board hired to put their trailblazing ideas into action. Piper says some desperados even publicly noted which school Fagen’s child attended—implying a threat to her safety.
Once free of the union, Douglas County could experiment with free-market ideas that most conservative school board members—where they exist—only dream about.
When 300 blue-shirt-wearing union members showed up at a board meeting chanting “This is what democracy looks like” and complaining vouchers and merit pay would “starve public education,” the four conservative board members began to consider dropping the union contract entirely. But open negotiations made that crazy-seeming idea a reality. It led to public discoveries that union money and activity in Douglas County—as everywhere else—went more to political activities than instructional improvements. Once that happened, the board began to consider, and then follow through on, ending its union contract.
“What we have been able to do and the speed at which we have been able to do it directly results from not having a union contract, because with a union everything is a compromise position,” says Fagen, a quick-speaking mother of two who looks to be about five feet, two inches tall.
Once free of the union, Douglas County could experiment with free-market ideas that most conservative school board members—where they exist—only dream about. If its experiments go well, it offers a template both for propelling conservatives into education, which is largely a liberal playground even in K-12, and for what such leaders might do when they get there.
Supply And Demand: A Novel Concept for TeachersDougCo has gotten the most national attention for proposing the nation’s first district-run vouchers program (it’s on hold, awaiting a Colorado Supreme Court ruling this fall), but Fagen said choosing to pay teachers market rates has been far more internally divisive.
Replacing the worst 5 to 7 percent of teachers with merely average-quality teachers would increase U.S. economic output by $112 trillion over the lifetimes of the rising generation.
The research demonstrating a teacher’s importance has only compounded. Teaching quality is the single most important factor a school controls that affects children, for better or for worse. A widely noted 2012 study that tracked 2.5 million children over 20 years found that teacher quality affects teen pregnancy rates, student achievement, and kids’ lifetime earnings. Replacing a poor teacher with just an average one would raise a classroom of students’ lifetime earnings by approximately $266,000. Economist Eric Hanushek has estimated that replacing the worst 5 to 7 percent of teachers with merely average-quality teachers would increase U.S. economic output by $112 trillion—yes, trillion with a T—over the lifetimes of the rising generation. It is almost impossible to fathom the worldwide benefits, which extend far beyond economic improvements.
Despite the massive consequences of hiring top teachers, almost no school district pays teachers according to quality or its need for particular skills. They typically pay according to union-preferred criteria known as “step-and-lane,” where two factors determine pay: The number of years a teacher has worked in the school district, and the number of credentials she has amassed. This pay scale is at the heart of two lawsuits raging in California and New York, which claim--correctly—that it sends the worst teachers to the lowest-performing students in poor communities who need good teachers most.
Only governments hire without regard to employee performance, because businesses that face competition can’t afford to. When he worked in the private sector, for companies such as Microsoft and General Electric, DougCo schools’ human resources director Brian Cesare could look at Labor Department data or gossip with colleagues to triangulate the going rates for certain positions. When he came to Douglas County, he couldn’t do that. No one had any idea what the market rate was for a school speech therapist. There was no market.
Given the sheer number of people public schools employ, that’s an amazing statement. At 63,000 students and 7,000 employees, Douglas County is Colorado’s third-largest school district. Like many other districts, it the largest local employer. If it were a business, Douglas County would be in a category with the biggest 0.007 percent of U.S. employers, if one calculates using Census Bureau data.
Self-Worth Versus Market ValueSeated at a conference table in Fagen’s office, Cesare ran his finger down a chart, noting that Douglas County hires for 72 distinct positions, and all require different training and skills, yet its union contract forbade recognizing that reality when attracting applicants. Open positions for elementary ed were always flooded with applicants, but school principals were lucky to get one applicant for a special-education opening.
‘I could earn $55,000 from [global agriculture conglomerate] Cargill starting out, or $31,000 as a teacher, where I would have to choose between buying a microwave and a vacuum.’
This severely hampered DougCo’s ability to find quality teachers. For one, a pay schedule means that people who make more than they’re worth are less likely to move on because they can’t get a better offer anywhere else. Conversely, people who earn less than they’re worth are more likely to move.
Further, bright college students have many career options. Fagan, who was once a pre-med student and graduated with a chemistry major, knows their dilemma: “I could earn $55,000 from [global agriculture conglomerate] Cargill starting out, or $31,000 as a teacher, where I would have to choose between buying a microwave and a vacuum.”
Since there was no market data available, Cesare tried to triangulate using what else he could find. He started calling principals and asking them to rank their job openings, from easiest-to-fill positions to hardest. In 2012, Douglas County unveiled a new pay scale with five salary ranges, or “bands.” Each of the district’s 72 positions fit into one band. In the bottom pay bracket were positions such as second- through fifth-grade teachers and physical education teachers. They can earn between $32,000 and $60,000 annually in base pay (which doesn’t include performance bonuses). The top bracket includes speech pathologists and school psychologists. They can earn between $45,000 and $94,000 in base pay.
2012 was the first year Douglas County had more applicants than special education positions. The next year, the district had enough information to expand the pay scale to six bands. Cesare thinks they can soon field ten.
The district had to field hundreds of angry teachers offended at receiving a label suggesting their work was worth less money than that of the teacher in the next classroom.
New teachers now start off at the bottom of the range for their job title, and as they demonstrate student achievement and meet other professional goals, they can earn more. Existing employees received no salary cut, but get different annual raises that gradually on- or off-ramp them into the designated salary range for their position and job performance. Someone already earning too much for her job title and performance might get consecutive 1 percent annual raises, while someone earning too little for her job title and performance could get annual pay raises of as much as 8 percent or more.This, even more than dropping the union contract or starting a voucher program, made her district explode, Fagen says.
“People in general associate their self-worth with what they make,” she noted. The district had to field hundreds of angry teachers offended at receiving a label suggesting their work was worth less money than that of the teacher in the next classroom. The year the new pay scale was implemented, approximately 13 percent of teachers left the district, which was nearly 100 more teachers than had left the previous year. The next year, 2013, 380 teachers left, or nearly 12 percent. All these are still below the statewide teacher turnover rate, which was 17 percent in 2013, according to the Colorado Department of Education.
Return of The Union, The tumult also gave an opening for the spurned union local to mount a divisive campaign against the district’s four conservative school board members. It backed four challengers for their positions and started throwing up placards and legal complaints. There was even a documentary film. The accusations ran the gamut, from screeds against “corporate reform,” which stem from union antipathy to market forces, to “how can you value one kind of teacher over another? Isn’t my kindergarten teacher as valuable as your math teacher?” said Ben DeGrow, an education policy analyst at the Denver-based Independence Institute. “They don’t understand economics, but the emotion appealed to the soccer moms.”
The union was on a trajectory to boot the conservative school board members from their posts until a right-wing community organizer and other Republican supporters mobilized to respond.
“Our side has a lot to learn about political messaging,” DeGrow says. “It’s not just in the message, but in the method. Our side is all too comfortable with the air war—I’ll use a military term. We use TV ads or radio ads, but the community organizer theory of people touching people and relationships, there’s a lot of power in that.”
‘Conservatives get into this bad habit, assuming that people think like we do and relationships aren’t a big deal.’
Putting boots on the ground, to use another military metaphor, made a difference. Damon Sasso, the community organizer, who also works for a northern Colorado radio station, made shareable YouTube videos, acted as a buffer between the various pro-reform political groups, and helped organize “house parties,” where a local resident, usually a suburban mom, invited her friends to her house for a Q&A with a school board candidate and snacks. Conservatives also hired college kids to knock on thousands of doors in the suburbs, surveying residents about education policy. Areas that leaned pro-market were targeted with get-out-the-vote efforts. DeGrow says the target areas had turnout of 88 percent. In Douglas County overall, turnout was about 48 percent. Both are higher than average, but 88 percent is astronomical.
“A lot of my job was managing the relationships between people,” Sasso said, talking on his cell as he pumped gas. “There was a lot of internal bickering of ‘this person didn’t like this because of that.’ I tried to zoom out and say, ‘We may not all agree on tactics, but we all want the same thing.’”
When Sasso took his show on the road, he didn’t want to be “dreadfully boring” like other political booths at fairs and other expos. So the Douglas County Champs for Kids group he helped organize put up a “Wheel of Choice,” where if the spinner landed on one of the board’s main education policies the guest could pick his own candy from a bowl, but if the spinner landed on “status quo stuff” the booth monitor would pick the candy for the spinner.
“This is a personal opinion,” Sasso said: “Those I find on the Left are very emotional and if they have a weak argument they tend to go into personal attacks very quickly. We made an agreement that we were always going to talk about the issues passionately but we were never going to attack personally. So an outsider on the fence would see that if they were watching…We wanted the reform side to be the people you wanted to have a drink with.”
As the conservatives gained traction, their opponents got more desperate, and then “more insane,” Sasso said. That’s when the rhetoric started to get unhinged—such as saying a certain candidate “hates kids,” for example.
“The people in our group who knew [bystanders to these arguments] best would reach out and say, ‘I know you care about kids and schools, and you don’t want bullies running the district,’” Sasso said.
‘We made an agreement that we were always going to talk about the issues passionately but we were never going to attack personally.’
When he met people passionate about a certain strategy or idea, he asked them to lead an effort to carry it out. One mother suggested putting up a TV with good news about the district outside a screening of an anti-district documentary. Sasso got her a little money, she got it built, and she and her friends stood outside the screening next to the TV cart, handing out flyers.
“Conservatives get into this bad habit, assuming that people think like we do and relationships aren’t a big deal,” Sasso said. “You can’t ignore the power of a face-to-face interaction.”
The most effective thing Sasso did, he says, is to build relationships and trust with people living in Douglas County. That required him to spend hours on living room and cell-phone conversations, and functioning as the go-between when people got on each other’s nerves. It required him to take people’s objections and concerns seriously. Mostly, he says, what he did was listen.
The 2013 Douglas County election results were not razor-thin, but not a blowout, either. The margin of victory in each of the four hotly contested races was about 3,000 votes, or a four-point spread. But all the board members who had faced a heavy barrage of union fire maintained their seats. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker knows, that’s not a small victory.
An Idea with Growth PotentialSasso has started taking what he’s learned in Douglas County into other school board races. He agreed with the district’s leaders, who emitted a chorus of “no’s” when asked over lunch at a Castle Rock pizzeria if school board elections were really as nonpartisan as politicos like to claim education politics should be.
“Everything’s peaceful and going along great until you put a conservative-minded reformer into a school district, and all of a sudden Chicago-style politics comes into these little towns,” Sasso said, chuckling.
Douglas County school leaders are now free to uproot a collectivist system that treats teachers and kids like interchangeable machine parts.
The world of education tilts heavily Left, and transmits and heightens that tilt to each subsequent generation. But when a little tribe of conservatives actually puts up a fight in local politics, Douglas County shows it can make a real difference. And not just in their town, although there is that. Thanks to the boots on the ground that rescued their campaigns, Douglas County school leaders are now free to uproot a collectivist system that treats teachers and kids like interchangeable machine parts.
“If this could ripple, it could benefit the country,” Cesare says of the district’s teacher pay revamp. Paying quality teachers more would increase the applicant pool not just in Douglas County, but everywhere, by attracting some smart pre-law, chemistry, and math majors from their other lucrative options into education.
Cesare travels regularly to explain to other districts what Douglas County is doing with teacher pay. If DougCo’s experiment works out, he says, others will follow suit. If they do, it will affect education schools, which are notorious for jettisoning academics in favor of leftist activism, to an even greater extent than most of higher education. Research has shown education majors typically have among the lowest SAT and GRE scores and worst academic records of all college students. But education schools make colleges a lot of money, so they don’t want to close them, and school districts don’t have the information to demand better graduates, so there’s little pressure to improve.
Cesare is working on a data system connected to the district’s teacher performance ratings to boost his recruiting. It is amassing information about which teachers from which schools and even ZIP codes perform better than others, down to the micro-level such as how their principals rate them on specific teaching techniques and their students’ test performance on specific topics.
A bigger return for a certain career indicates a bigger societal need for it. That’s how markets work.
In the meantime, “our kids will get the better teacher in front of them,” he said. “If you get a bad teacher two years in a row, you never recover.” A secondary effect would change the culture of education. Currently, Cesare says, school districts have teacher absentee rates of 8 percent, which is two times the national average of private-sector absenteeism. Over a child’s 12 years of secondary and elementary education, that equates to a full year with a substitute teacher. Research finds what parents already know: kids learn far less with subs.
Teachers typically don’t go into education for the money, as Fagan knows from her own choices, but pay does signal what work provides society the best return on a person’s time and energies. A bigger return for a certain career indicates a bigger societal need for it. A bigger return in exchange for more effort also helps people decide against the path of least resistance, so they overcome a natural desire for comfort to choose a career that helps society more. That’s how markets work. Fagan’s goal, and Douglas County’s, is to work with people’s natural inclinations, rather than against them, to give their students the best teachers they can.
“Our side has a lot to learn about political messaging,” DeGrow says. “It’s not just in the message, but in the method. Our side is all too comfortable with the air war—I’ll use a military term. We use TV ads or radio ads, but the community organizer theory of people touching people and relationships, there’s a lot of power in that.”
‘Conservatives get into this bad habit, assuming that people think like we do and relationships aren’t a big deal.’
Putting boots on the ground, to use another military metaphor, made a difference. Damon Sasso, the community organizer, who also works for a northern Colorado radio station, made shareable YouTube videos, acted as a buffer between the various pro-reform political groups, and helped organize “house parties,” where a local resident, usually a suburban mom, invited her friends to her house for a Q&A with a school board candidate and snacks. Conservatives also hired college kids to knock on thousands of doors in the suburbs, surveying residents about education policy. Areas that leaned pro-market were targeted with get-out-the-vote efforts. DeGrow says the target areas had turnout of 88 percent. In Douglas County overall, turnout was about 48 percent. Both are higher than average, but 88 percent is astronomical.
“A lot of my job was managing the relationships between people,” Sasso said, talking on his cell as he pumped gas. “There was a lot of internal bickering of ‘this person didn’t like this because of that.’ I tried to zoom out and say, ‘We may not all agree on tactics, but we all want the same thing.’”
When Sasso took his show on the road, he didn’t want to be “dreadfully boring” like other political booths at fairs and other expos. So the Douglas County Champs for Kids group he helped organize put up a “Wheel of Choice,” where if the spinner landed on one of the board’s main education policies the guest could pick his own candy from a bowl, but if the spinner landed on “status quo stuff” the booth monitor would pick the candy for the spinner.
“This is a personal opinion,” Sasso said: “Those I find on the Left are very emotional and if they have a weak argument they tend to go into personal attacks very quickly. We made an agreement that we were always going to talk about the issues passionately but we were never going to attack personally. So an outsider on the fence would see that if they were watching…We wanted the reform side to be the people you wanted to have a drink with.”
As the conservatives gained traction, their opponents got more desperate, and then “more insane,” Sasso said. That’s when the rhetoric started to get unhinged—such as saying a certain candidate “hates kids,” for example.
“The people in our group who knew [bystanders to these arguments] best would reach out and say, ‘I know you care about kids and schools, and you don’t want bullies running the district,’” Sasso said.
‘We made an agreement that we were always going to talk about the issues passionately but we were never going to attack personally.’
When he met people passionate about a certain strategy or idea, he asked them to lead an effort to carry it out. One mother suggested putting up a TV with good news about the district outside a screening of an anti-district documentary. Sasso got her a little money, she got it built, and she and her friends stood outside the screening next to the TV cart, handing out flyers.
“Conservatives get into this bad habit, assuming that people think like we do and relationships aren’t a big deal,” Sasso said. “You can’t ignore the power of a face-to-face interaction.”
The most effective thing Sasso did, he says, is to build relationships and trust with people living in Douglas County. That required him to spend hours on living room and cell-phone conversations, and functioning as the go-between when people got on each other’s nerves. It required him to take people’s objections and concerns seriously. Mostly, he says, what he did was listen.
The 2013 Douglas County election results were not razor-thin, but not a blowout, either. The margin of victory in each of the four hotly contested races was about 3,000 votes, or a four-point spread. But all the board members who had faced a heavy barrage of union fire maintained their seats. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker knows, that’s not a small victory.
An Idea with Growth PotentialSasso has started taking what he’s learned in Douglas County into other school board races. He agreed with the district’s leaders, who emitted a chorus of “no’s” when asked over lunch at a Castle Rock pizzeria if school board elections were really as nonpartisan as politicos like to claim education politics should be.
“Everything’s peaceful and going along great until you put a conservative-minded reformer into a school district, and all of a sudden Chicago-style politics comes into these little towns,” Sasso said, chuckling.
Douglas County school leaders are now free to uproot a collectivist system that treats teachers and kids like interchangeable machine parts.
The world of education tilts heavily Left, and transmits and heightens that tilt to each subsequent generation. But when a little tribe of conservatives actually puts up a fight in local politics, Douglas County shows it can make a real difference. And not just in their town, although there is that. Thanks to the boots on the ground that rescued their campaigns, Douglas County school leaders are now free to uproot a collectivist system that treats teachers and kids like interchangeable machine parts.
“If this could ripple, it could benefit the country,” Cesare says of the district’s teacher pay revamp. Paying quality teachers more would increase the applicant pool not just in Douglas County, but everywhere, by attracting some smart pre-law, chemistry, and math majors from their other lucrative options into education.
Cesare travels regularly to explain to other districts what Douglas County is doing with teacher pay. If DougCo’s experiment works out, he says, others will follow suit. If they do, it will affect education schools, which are notorious for jettisoning academics in favor of leftist activism, to an even greater extent than most of higher education. Research has shown education majors typically have among the lowest SAT and GRE scores and worst academic records of all college students. But education schools make colleges a lot of money, so they don’t want to close them, and school districts don’t have the information to demand better graduates, so there’s little pressure to improve.
Cesare is working on a data system connected to the district’s teacher performance ratings to boost his recruiting. It is amassing information about which teachers from which schools and even ZIP codes perform better than others, down to the micro-level such as how their principals rate them on specific teaching techniques and their students’ test performance on specific topics.
A bigger return for a certain career indicates a bigger societal need for it. That’s how markets work.
In the meantime, “our kids will get the better teacher in front of them,” he said. “If you get a bad teacher two years in a row, you never recover.” A secondary effect would change the culture of education. Currently, Cesare says, school districts have teacher absentee rates of 8 percent, which is two times the national average of private-sector absenteeism. Over a child’s 12 years of secondary and elementary education, that equates to a full year with a substitute teacher. Research finds what parents already know: kids learn far less with subs.
Teachers typically don’t go into education for the money, as Fagan knows from her own choices, but pay does signal what work provides society the best return on a person’s time and energies. A bigger return for a certain career indicates a bigger societal need for it. A bigger return in exchange for more effort also helps people decide against the path of least resistance, so they overcome a natural desire for comfort to choose a career that helps society more. That’s how markets work. Fagan’s goal, and Douglas County’s, is to work with people’s natural inclinations, rather than against them, to give their students the best teachers they can.
Constitutional Theory
There is a history of Constitutional theory in the United States that goes back before the present Constitution was created and ratified. It manifested itself in the original 'Articles of the Confederation of the United States of America, and later in the Constitution.
A good example of the general mindset of the Colonists when they formed the government of the United States can be demonstrated by the statement put into the State Constitution of Massachusetts;
" In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
This was encoded in Massachusetts State Constitutional law in 1780, seven years prior to the construction of the Constitution and was the model for the separation and enumeration of powers in the Constitution.
The one good opinion that John Marshall contributed to the Checks and Balances of Federal Government was in fact what the Framers intended was that in certain proper instances, the Supreme Court could hold acts of Congress Unconstitutional, as a check on their powers similar in context as the Presidential Veto. This subject was actually thoroughly discussed in the Constitutional Convention and also in the States Ratifying Conventions. It was even committed to print for the public to examine.
The aforementioned opinion by John Marshall on the Constitutional authorization of the Supreme Court as a vital check and balance to government is a good one, but the people, Supreme Court, and Politicians have seemingly forgotten that if there is a dispute between Congressional Legislation and a Supreme Court ruling that said legislation is Unconstitutional, the check and balance to that is Article V of the Constitution whereby the proposed law is referred to the people through the amendment process for them to ultimately decide if they want to be governed by it. That is the intended rule of Self Government.
In fact the Connecticut convention clearly stated that practice was then intended to exist there precisely as it does exist today in the courts. It defined the fact that the Judicial Branch was the check on Congressional over reach in legislating laws that were repugnant to the letter and intent of the Constitution of the Federal Government. For example if the Congress or even State Legislatures make a law that is not authorized under the Constitution that law is void. This is good as far as it goes, but again if there is such a conflict the law should be submitted to the highest authority in the land, The People, for them to decide on it's merits and accept it or reject it as they see fit.
Even that sage and Primary Author of the Constitution, Twice President of the United States, and avowed Revolutionary James Madison cautioned " Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." Can you see how that affects us all today?
This should serve to show us just how far away from the original concept of Republic the Founders created that we have been gradually moved by those who promote massive government as a ruling body
The Tradesman
A good example of the general mindset of the Colonists when they formed the government of the United States can be demonstrated by the statement put into the State Constitution of Massachusetts;
" In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
This was encoded in Massachusetts State Constitutional law in 1780, seven years prior to the construction of the Constitution and was the model for the separation and enumeration of powers in the Constitution.
The one good opinion that John Marshall contributed to the Checks and Balances of Federal Government was in fact what the Framers intended was that in certain proper instances, the Supreme Court could hold acts of Congress Unconstitutional, as a check on their powers similar in context as the Presidential Veto. This subject was actually thoroughly discussed in the Constitutional Convention and also in the States Ratifying Conventions. It was even committed to print for the public to examine.
The aforementioned opinion by John Marshall on the Constitutional authorization of the Supreme Court as a vital check and balance to government is a good one, but the people, Supreme Court, and Politicians have seemingly forgotten that if there is a dispute between Congressional Legislation and a Supreme Court ruling that said legislation is Unconstitutional, the check and balance to that is Article V of the Constitution whereby the proposed law is referred to the people through the amendment process for them to ultimately decide if they want to be governed by it. That is the intended rule of Self Government.
In fact the Connecticut convention clearly stated that practice was then intended to exist there precisely as it does exist today in the courts. It defined the fact that the Judicial Branch was the check on Congressional over reach in legislating laws that were repugnant to the letter and intent of the Constitution of the Federal Government. For example if the Congress or even State Legislatures make a law that is not authorized under the Constitution that law is void. This is good as far as it goes, but again if there is such a conflict the law should be submitted to the highest authority in the land, The People, for them to decide on it's merits and accept it or reject it as they see fit.
Even that sage and Primary Author of the Constitution, Twice President of the United States, and avowed Revolutionary James Madison cautioned " Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." Can you see how that affects us all today?
This should serve to show us just how far away from the original concept of Republic the Founders created that we have been gradually moved by those who promote massive government as a ruling body
The Tradesman
Guest Editorial from Mickie, 8/12/14
Mrs. Clinton dodging bullets on a Bosnian tarmac
The Democratic Party is already tripping over themselves in their hasty preparation to lay the groundwork to elect the first woman president to follow up on their successful election of the first black president. In the next few months we will begin to see a lot of information resurface in regards to Hillary “formerly Rodham” Clinton’s past exploits, scandals, and sometimes confusing history.
I’m here to help get the ball rolling early on that. As the current occupant of the white house was elected with virtually no vetting whatsoever, a good many of us believe it is important to get ahead of the game this time around as soon as humanly possible. Below is an inspiring story along those lines that I’m sure you’ll enjoy.
In case you didn't know or don’t remember, the former first lady and later Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton had a very close call during a goodwill trip to Bosnia in the nineties during the bloody Bosnian war. It occurred during the bloody Bosnian war while her husband was president. In an apparent horrible failing of pre-landing intelligence and security she "remembers landing under fire...we had to lower our heads and run for the cars..." Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that not only was her life apparently in danger, but she had Chelsea with her as well.
How brave and courageous for her to have put her life on the line in an active war zone to help bring peace to an oppressed people.
Fortunately for her, a CBS report includes the footage of this traumatic and heroic action. It is a dramatic piece of footage and one that will undoubtedly be included in her upcoming election commercials as an example of her grace and courage under fire.
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
Mrs. Clinton has accused her critics in the past of “swiftboating” her in regards to her own claim of coming under fire by Serbian snipers. I can only assume that the term swiftboating is defined as “pointing out the truth in response to a Democratic presidential candidate’s dubious claim.”
How Hillary Clinton remembers it:
youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
This, of course, is just one of the many well documented lies perpetrated by “she would replace ‘the One’ as the leader of the free world.”
Thank goodness Hillary stood on that wall. We need her on that wall. And the Democratic Party wants her on that wall.
Do you?
I’m here to help get the ball rolling early on that. As the current occupant of the white house was elected with virtually no vetting whatsoever, a good many of us believe it is important to get ahead of the game this time around as soon as humanly possible. Below is an inspiring story along those lines that I’m sure you’ll enjoy.
In case you didn't know or don’t remember, the former first lady and later Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton had a very close call during a goodwill trip to Bosnia in the nineties during the bloody Bosnian war. It occurred during the bloody Bosnian war while her husband was president. In an apparent horrible failing of pre-landing intelligence and security she "remembers landing under fire...we had to lower our heads and run for the cars..." Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that not only was her life apparently in danger, but she had Chelsea with her as well.
How brave and courageous for her to have put her life on the line in an active war zone to help bring peace to an oppressed people.
Fortunately for her, a CBS report includes the footage of this traumatic and heroic action. It is a dramatic piece of footage and one that will undoubtedly be included in her upcoming election commercials as an example of her grace and courage under fire.
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
Mrs. Clinton has accused her critics in the past of “swiftboating” her in regards to her own claim of coming under fire by Serbian snipers. I can only assume that the term swiftboating is defined as “pointing out the truth in response to a Democratic presidential candidate’s dubious claim.”
How Hillary Clinton remembers it:
youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
This, of course, is just one of the many well documented lies perpetrated by “she would replace ‘the One’ as the leader of the free world.”
Thank goodness Hillary stood on that wall. We need her on that wall. And the Democratic Party wants her on that wall.
Do you?
Tasks List for our Desperate Nation and Leaders who Believe in a Working Vacation
Reprinted here by permission of McFixit1
Here are some things that desperately need to be done during the Congressional break;
Action Items this Week:
The President's policies on immigration are directly responsible for the crisis on the border. Please encourage your friends and contacts to call the White House Switchboard at 202-456-1414. Tell President Obama that Amnesty by Executive Order is not acceptable, out of Constitutional bounds, and will only worsen conditions on our country's border. This might seem like an exercise in futility, but if enough people call and complain, the word will get back to Congress, and don't forget this is an election year.
Please take time to thank the members of Congress that have stood with us on the border issue. Senators Sessions, Cruz. Congressmen L. Gohmert, S. King, M. Bachmann, K. Bentivollo, M. Brooks, and P. Gosar.
Secondly, make sure to complain loudly and often about Harry Reid's attempt to get a Constitutional Amendment to curtail Free Speech proposed. Condemn him and his actions as the ravings of a man who has lost grip on reality and has turned traitor to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution because of these actions. Question not only his despicable motives about this, question his sanity to the Senators and Congressmen you contact.
There has been limited and highly biased information given out by the main stream media on the States manning the Southern Borders to stop the flow of immigrants, and the Federal government objecting to that and calling it illegal. So I ask you to consider this information also when contacting your Congressional Representatives;
Article 1 Section 10, and Article 1 Section 8, of the US Constitution.
The following is 'Article I section 10', from a transcript of the Constitution of the United States of America, provided by the National Archives website ( Notice my highlights, and spelling not corrected from original document): Section. 10. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. "
I feel this could be used as a basis to legally justify the States in supplying troops to secure the borders considering the invasion (notice the wording "unless actually invaded") is already happening and the definition of 'invasion' is not spelled out definitively in the document, so we can use the dictionary definition of invasion from Dictionary.com ;
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.Entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.Infringement by intrusion.
That section of the Constitution by definition,gives the Sates Legal Authority to defend their borders and trumps anything Eric Holder or President Obama says to the contrary. even a law passed by the Congress to the contrary would by necessity have to be declared Unconstitutional by SCOTUS. The only way the powers that be could get around this section would be to get an amendment passed nullifying this specific passage.
Congress has been officially derelict in it's prescribed duties under 'Article 1 Section 8', of the US Constitution, and I cite the following portions of it as it relates to the border issue;
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States";
The time to move on this is right now, and keep it going until the November Elections or Reid will win all including the UN Small Arms Treaty Ratification in the Lame Duck Session.
I fully endorse McFixit1 on this. Please distribute it as far and wide as possible!
The Tradesman
Here are some things that desperately need to be done during the Congressional break;
Action Items this Week:
The President's policies on immigration are directly responsible for the crisis on the border. Please encourage your friends and contacts to call the White House Switchboard at 202-456-1414. Tell President Obama that Amnesty by Executive Order is not acceptable, out of Constitutional bounds, and will only worsen conditions on our country's border. This might seem like an exercise in futility, but if enough people call and complain, the word will get back to Congress, and don't forget this is an election year.
Please take time to thank the members of Congress that have stood with us on the border issue. Senators Sessions, Cruz. Congressmen L. Gohmert, S. King, M. Bachmann, K. Bentivollo, M. Brooks, and P. Gosar.
Secondly, make sure to complain loudly and often about Harry Reid's attempt to get a Constitutional Amendment to curtail Free Speech proposed. Condemn him and his actions as the ravings of a man who has lost grip on reality and has turned traitor to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution because of these actions. Question not only his despicable motives about this, question his sanity to the Senators and Congressmen you contact.
There has been limited and highly biased information given out by the main stream media on the States manning the Southern Borders to stop the flow of immigrants, and the Federal government objecting to that and calling it illegal. So I ask you to consider this information also when contacting your Congressional Representatives;
Article 1 Section 10, and Article 1 Section 8, of the US Constitution.
The following is 'Article I section 10', from a transcript of the Constitution of the United States of America, provided by the National Archives website ( Notice my highlights, and spelling not corrected from original document): Section. 10. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. "
I feel this could be used as a basis to legally justify the States in supplying troops to secure the borders considering the invasion (notice the wording "unless actually invaded") is already happening and the definition of 'invasion' is not spelled out definitively in the document, so we can use the dictionary definition of invasion from Dictionary.com ;
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.Entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.Infringement by intrusion.
That section of the Constitution by definition,gives the Sates Legal Authority to defend their borders and trumps anything Eric Holder or President Obama says to the contrary. even a law passed by the Congress to the contrary would by necessity have to be declared Unconstitutional by SCOTUS. The only way the powers that be could get around this section would be to get an amendment passed nullifying this specific passage.
Congress has been officially derelict in it's prescribed duties under 'Article 1 Section 8', of the US Constitution, and I cite the following portions of it as it relates to the border issue;
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States";
The time to move on this is right now, and keep it going until the November Elections or Reid will win all including the UN Small Arms Treaty Ratification in the Lame Duck Session.
I fully endorse McFixit1 on this. Please distribute it as far and wide as possible!
The Tradesman
Subject: Democrats Fudge Truth about Subsidies on Health Care Exchanges - Bruce Bialosky
Another great work piece from the President of the San Antonio Tea Party - he finds the good stuff.
J. Allen Tharp
Date: Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Subject: Democrats Fudge Truth about Subsidies on Health Care Exchanges - Bruce Bialosky
Some people want you to suspend your imagination and your memory regarding what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) actually states in terms of who can receive subsidies for their health insurance. Of course, as usual, when you have right on your side, truth does not matter. But we will explain why the subsidies disbursed from the federal exchange fails the test of what is right.
As you know by now, there were two rulings issued in a Court of Appeals that were diametrically opposed to each other. The issue revolves around whether the federal exchange (operating in 36 states) which is dispensing subsidies was authorized by the law. In referring to who may issue subsidies, the law says "an Exchange established by the State." The people in favor of continuing the federal subsidies want us to believe that either that was not what the law really says or was countered by language in other sections of the bill, or that was clearly not the intent of the law.
After spending a couple weeks reading and listening to those who support the federal subsidies, I have not become aware of any substance to these positions. A perfect example is a principal supporter of the law in the press, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. He states as a defense "the law was not particularly well drafted." He then goes on to say "Never mind that many other parts of the law clearly assume that the subsidies apply to people on both the state and federal exchanges." Mr. Dionne, like everyone else making this argument, fails to cite where in the law this is done. Tell us where and we will believe you, but what the true believers think is that if they repeat that claptrap often enough it will become the truth. Not so. Dionne goes on to say "And never mind that during the very long debate over the ACA, no one ever said otherwise." Let us understand -- since no one argued a negative that the federal exchange is not able to issue subsidies, it must be able to issue subsidies even if the law clearly says they are allowed from state exchanges.
Jill Horwitz, a UCLA law professor, and Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan professor writing in the Los Angeles Times exemplify this position. They said "The D.C. Circuit relied on a superficially plausible but ultimately nonsensical reading of the Affordable Care Act's text." In essence they are saying don't believe what the text says; believe what we tell you it means -- as if the ACA is a romance novel riddled with double entendre. They go on to state "There is not one shred of reliable evidence that anyone ... understood the Affordable Care Act to limit subsidies to only participants in state-established exchanges. " Again those who read the text as it is stated are supposed to prove a negative; i.e., that it was never the intention to limit the subsidies through a federal exchange.
Then there is the issue of the intent of the writers. Liberals are big on intent as opposed to what a bill says. I can't get away with that. I try it with
my wife telling her I intended to take her to Paris for our anniversary. Even though I actually didn't, I should get credit for it because it was in my
heart to do so. Ah, to be a liberal!
Those in favor of federal exchange subsidies want to argue it was the intent (with absolutely no stated support for that argument) by hoping to repeat it often enough so it becomes the truth. But, if anything, the intent (if it even matters) really falls on the other side and we believe it was a moving principle of the wording.
First, it is exactly the structure used for the Medicaid program for the past fifty years and the only model that existed upon which the law could be fashioned.
Second, it was the political reality at the time. In 2006, Rahm Emanuel was responsible for recruiting Democrats to run for Congress. He smartly recruited relatively conservative Democrats in many districts that helped Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House. This greatly expanded the coalition known as Blue Dog Democrats. They stayed in office and actually grew in number in 2008. These were the people who enabled Pelosi and her team to pass Obamacare in the House. While writing the bill in the Senate they had to pay attention to getting the votes of these House members along with conservative Democrats like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. These members were jittery about the bill. They would never want the health care system totally turned over to the federal government. These people were not like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman who actually believe the federal government works well. They were small-government Democrats. Of course they are now gone from Congress. After being used as cannon fodder by Pelosi, the Blue Dogs have shrunk from 52 members to 19 currently.
Third, people in support of the bill never thought that 36 states would not form their own exchange. In fact they thought the opposite. Comments that were made by MIT Professor of Economics Jonathan Gruber (a paid consultant regarding the drafting of ACA to the tune of $392,600) support this thinking. By now you have likely seen what he stated at the time: "What's important politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens (residents professor, people are residents of a state, citizens of a country) don't get their tax credits - but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, 'You're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.'" Gruber now disavows what he said, indicating it was a "speako". His statement seems crystal clear to me except for the misuse of the word citizen. But that is now inconvenient so he uses liberals' favorite friend again, Emily Litella (Gilda Radner), as they say "Never Mind."
Last is the issue of how this rule was promulgated. After the legislation was found wholly inadequate, the IRS -- America's favorite bureaucracy - determined that it was the right of the federal exchange to hand out subsidies. Forget that this is another blatant political act by the IRS. The defenders of their action hang their hats on a 1984 Fourth Circuit court ruling (Chevron vs. NRDC). It says that where there's an ambiguity that's interpreted by the government agency in charge of Administering that law, the agency must be given deference unless its interpretation is wildly improper. This means -- we don't understand the plain English of the law or we don't like the plain English so we can make any interpretation we wish as a bureaucracy to further our existence as long as someone cannot muster millions of dollars to sue us. In effect, if you believe this ruling, every law enacted by Congress is open to whatever the bureaucrats believe it says. If there ever was a need for the Supreme Court to stomp on something here it is.
The legislation clearly states what it states - subsidies come through state exchanges. There is no contrary evidence in the bill and no evidence of intent (as if that matters) that it was otherwise. There is no ambiguity. Now that their ice cream sundae has turned to a puddle of goo they want to change reality to meet their needs. The Supreme Court should straighten them out and fast.
J. Allen Tharp
Date: Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Subject: Democrats Fudge Truth about Subsidies on Health Care Exchanges - Bruce Bialosky
Some people want you to suspend your imagination and your memory regarding what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) actually states in terms of who can receive subsidies for their health insurance. Of course, as usual, when you have right on your side, truth does not matter. But we will explain why the subsidies disbursed from the federal exchange fails the test of what is right.
As you know by now, there were two rulings issued in a Court of Appeals that were diametrically opposed to each other. The issue revolves around whether the federal exchange (operating in 36 states) which is dispensing subsidies was authorized by the law. In referring to who may issue subsidies, the law says "an Exchange established by the State." The people in favor of continuing the federal subsidies want us to believe that either that was not what the law really says or was countered by language in other sections of the bill, or that was clearly not the intent of the law.
After spending a couple weeks reading and listening to those who support the federal subsidies, I have not become aware of any substance to these positions. A perfect example is a principal supporter of the law in the press, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. He states as a defense "the law was not particularly well drafted." He then goes on to say "Never mind that many other parts of the law clearly assume that the subsidies apply to people on both the state and federal exchanges." Mr. Dionne, like everyone else making this argument, fails to cite where in the law this is done. Tell us where and we will believe you, but what the true believers think is that if they repeat that claptrap often enough it will become the truth. Not so. Dionne goes on to say "And never mind that during the very long debate over the ACA, no one ever said otherwise." Let us understand -- since no one argued a negative that the federal exchange is not able to issue subsidies, it must be able to issue subsidies even if the law clearly says they are allowed from state exchanges.
Jill Horwitz, a UCLA law professor, and Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan professor writing in the Los Angeles Times exemplify this position. They said "The D.C. Circuit relied on a superficially plausible but ultimately nonsensical reading of the Affordable Care Act's text." In essence they are saying don't believe what the text says; believe what we tell you it means -- as if the ACA is a romance novel riddled with double entendre. They go on to state "There is not one shred of reliable evidence that anyone ... understood the Affordable Care Act to limit subsidies to only participants in state-established exchanges. " Again those who read the text as it is stated are supposed to prove a negative; i.e., that it was never the intention to limit the subsidies through a federal exchange.
Then there is the issue of the intent of the writers. Liberals are big on intent as opposed to what a bill says. I can't get away with that. I try it with
my wife telling her I intended to take her to Paris for our anniversary. Even though I actually didn't, I should get credit for it because it was in my
heart to do so. Ah, to be a liberal!
Those in favor of federal exchange subsidies want to argue it was the intent (with absolutely no stated support for that argument) by hoping to repeat it often enough so it becomes the truth. But, if anything, the intent (if it even matters) really falls on the other side and we believe it was a moving principle of the wording.
First, it is exactly the structure used for the Medicaid program for the past fifty years and the only model that existed upon which the law could be fashioned.
Second, it was the political reality at the time. In 2006, Rahm Emanuel was responsible for recruiting Democrats to run for Congress. He smartly recruited relatively conservative Democrats in many districts that helped Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House. This greatly expanded the coalition known as Blue Dog Democrats. They stayed in office and actually grew in number in 2008. These were the people who enabled Pelosi and her team to pass Obamacare in the House. While writing the bill in the Senate they had to pay attention to getting the votes of these House members along with conservative Democrats like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. These members were jittery about the bill. They would never want the health care system totally turned over to the federal government. These people were not like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman who actually believe the federal government works well. They were small-government Democrats. Of course they are now gone from Congress. After being used as cannon fodder by Pelosi, the Blue Dogs have shrunk from 52 members to 19 currently.
Third, people in support of the bill never thought that 36 states would not form their own exchange. In fact they thought the opposite. Comments that were made by MIT Professor of Economics Jonathan Gruber (a paid consultant regarding the drafting of ACA to the tune of $392,600) support this thinking. By now you have likely seen what he stated at the time: "What's important politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens (residents professor, people are residents of a state, citizens of a country) don't get their tax credits - but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, 'You're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.'" Gruber now disavows what he said, indicating it was a "speako". His statement seems crystal clear to me except for the misuse of the word citizen. But that is now inconvenient so he uses liberals' favorite friend again, Emily Litella (Gilda Radner), as they say "Never Mind."
Last is the issue of how this rule was promulgated. After the legislation was found wholly inadequate, the IRS -- America's favorite bureaucracy - determined that it was the right of the federal exchange to hand out subsidies. Forget that this is another blatant political act by the IRS. The defenders of their action hang their hats on a 1984 Fourth Circuit court ruling (Chevron vs. NRDC). It says that where there's an ambiguity that's interpreted by the government agency in charge of Administering that law, the agency must be given deference unless its interpretation is wildly improper. This means -- we don't understand the plain English of the law or we don't like the plain English so we can make any interpretation we wish as a bureaucracy to further our existence as long as someone cannot muster millions of dollars to sue us. In effect, if you believe this ruling, every law enacted by Congress is open to whatever the bureaucrats believe it says. If there ever was a need for the Supreme Court to stomp on something here it is.
The legislation clearly states what it states - subsidies come through state exchanges. There is no contrary evidence in the bill and no evidence of intent (as if that matters) that it was otherwise. There is no ambiguity. Now that their ice cream sundae has turned to a puddle of goo they want to change reality to meet their needs. The Supreme Court should straighten them out and fast.
We Have Another Win For The Second Amendment!
Sources; http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/07/aint-got-right-federal-judge-rules-dc-gun-ban-unconstitutional/#dhhFc409FjVqLwox.99 and you can read the complete decision here;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/
Looks like the good guys who actually believe in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land have won another round in the ongoing fight to protect our Second Amendment rights from the Elites who would trample them just to get their way.
Federal Judge Frederick Scullin of the District of Columbia made a ruling Saturday that overturned the city's total ban on residents being able to carry firearms outside their homes. this is a landmark decision because it leaves no doubt that those kinds of laws are Unconstitutional. In a move that was totally expected from the ruling elites who can't take no for an answer, the ruling will be appealed.
Alan Gura the lead attorney for the Second amendment foundation expects the appeal and pledged to keep the fight going. He also said he was pleased with the ruling that forbids the city from stopping citizens from exercising their Constitutional Rights, and that the decision leaves no grey area in gun carrying rights.
Justice Scullin cited Recent Supreme Court decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago to reach his decision that there is no longer a basis that the court can use to conclude the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying ready to use handguns outside the home is in any way Constitutional. the order contained the direction that the city now allow residents from the district and other States be allowed to carry weapons within it's boundaries, and forbids the district of Columbia from enforcing it's firearms laws until it adopts licensing consistent with Constitutional standards.
The district of Columbia's City Council chairman Phil Mendelson stated Sunday for the record on the ruling that because of DC's unique national security concerns, the right to carry a firearm within the city "Must be more heavily restricted than any other place in the Nation". ( In my opinion, that is typical of the reasons the Elite's want to take away the guns from everyone. They fear reprisals for not representing the public instead of themselves.) The ruling was a culmination of FIVE YEARS that it was hindered and dragged through the courts.
One of the plaintiff's, George Lyon, who is also a lawyer, urged DC Mayor Vincent Grey (D) to "Swiftly enact a concealed carry law that protects the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Gray refused to respond to a request for comment on the situation.
There are some legitimate concerns over firearms and safety of the politicians, but they should only cover the loonies and assassins that are not law abiding citizens. Four Presidents have been killed, and five have been shot at. The Secret Service and the Capitol Police refuse to disclose information where they have recovered firearms. Maybe if there had been some armed Law Abiding Citizens around, those incidents could have been minimized or negated. I'll bet the politicians don't think of that, being protected by armed loyal citizens who believe in rule of law, and are willing to act to protect them.
Here's a little tidbit I had forgotten about, Two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire. ( Must have been a disgruntled Progressive Uber Lefty that wanted to blame our side because Obama had not already enacted all the left's Ideals. ) I say that because Conservatives by and large are Law Abiding Citizens that would not think of doing that.
The Tradesman
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/
Looks like the good guys who actually believe in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land have won another round in the ongoing fight to protect our Second Amendment rights from the Elites who would trample them just to get their way.
Federal Judge Frederick Scullin of the District of Columbia made a ruling Saturday that overturned the city's total ban on residents being able to carry firearms outside their homes. this is a landmark decision because it leaves no doubt that those kinds of laws are Unconstitutional. In a move that was totally expected from the ruling elites who can't take no for an answer, the ruling will be appealed.
Alan Gura the lead attorney for the Second amendment foundation expects the appeal and pledged to keep the fight going. He also said he was pleased with the ruling that forbids the city from stopping citizens from exercising their Constitutional Rights, and that the decision leaves no grey area in gun carrying rights.
Justice Scullin cited Recent Supreme Court decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago to reach his decision that there is no longer a basis that the court can use to conclude the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying ready to use handguns outside the home is in any way Constitutional. the order contained the direction that the city now allow residents from the district and other States be allowed to carry weapons within it's boundaries, and forbids the district of Columbia from enforcing it's firearms laws until it adopts licensing consistent with Constitutional standards.
The district of Columbia's City Council chairman Phil Mendelson stated Sunday for the record on the ruling that because of DC's unique national security concerns, the right to carry a firearm within the city "Must be more heavily restricted than any other place in the Nation". ( In my opinion, that is typical of the reasons the Elite's want to take away the guns from everyone. They fear reprisals for not representing the public instead of themselves.) The ruling was a culmination of FIVE YEARS that it was hindered and dragged through the courts.
One of the plaintiff's, George Lyon, who is also a lawyer, urged DC Mayor Vincent Grey (D) to "Swiftly enact a concealed carry law that protects the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Gray refused to respond to a request for comment on the situation.
There are some legitimate concerns over firearms and safety of the politicians, but they should only cover the loonies and assassins that are not law abiding citizens. Four Presidents have been killed, and five have been shot at. The Secret Service and the Capitol Police refuse to disclose information where they have recovered firearms. Maybe if there had been some armed Law Abiding Citizens around, those incidents could have been minimized or negated. I'll bet the politicians don't think of that, being protected by armed loyal citizens who believe in rule of law, and are willing to act to protect them.
Here's a little tidbit I had forgotten about, Two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire. ( Must have been a disgruntled Progressive Uber Lefty that wanted to blame our side because Obama had not already enacted all the left's Ideals. ) I say that because Conservatives by and large are Law Abiding Citizens that would not think of doing that.
The Tradesman
Situation Critical! Pandemics, Swine Flu, WHO and US DOH and CDC
Retired Border Patrol Agent Zach Taylor says; Immigrant Surge across the Border is in fact Asymmetrical warfare. Due to the nature of this video, it probably will be pulled within 24 hours of when the Administration gets wind of it, to sequester the information and to keep it from public scrutiny. So watch it first and take notes!!! The Tradesman.
The information within the video also confirms that the CDC is not working with DHS to screen the sick illegals trying to gain access to the United States. It also confirms the fact that there are many sick people with various types of diseases. He goes on to say these people are disappearing from the masses and they don't know where they are going or if they are being quarantined, they don't know where. This is all being kept from the public supposedly to suppress any panic that would ensue if the public found out just how dangerous to public health this is.
He warns about the massive fronts where the illegals are coming in precludes most of the health screenings for the rare Kidney diseases and even the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, and that the ebola virus looks like it was deliberately planted in those African cities to infect the population because it is working in reverse of it's normal method of infection. Many of the infected people from West Africa that have been exposed to this scourge and many are illegals pouring into Mexico to facilitate their entry into America.
He blasts the administration's ploy to only show the illegals as the helpless children and taking the focus deliberately off the 90+% that have not been caught, so the administration can play on the natural compassion of the American People. This in fact goes hand in hand with the Elites alleged program to use their influence and wealth to reduce the population of the Earth to under 2 Billion, and leaves the United States open to a Deadly Pandemic that could be avoided if the Administration wanted it to be avoided. My conclusion is the buggers actually are working to make the pandemic a reality.
Another thing is the gang members that have committed no crime in the United States are turned free to do their worst here, many of them are infected with communicable diseases too. I have to believe that Obama and his puppet masters like Soros and those above Soros are doing this to completely destroy the United States and take it over politically at a time when the population will be too weak to resist. The members of those gangs that have been found to have communicable diseases are taken by the CDC to places unknown and the diseases are kept secret. Some of the diseases that are speculated on are Antibiotic resistant Tuberculosis, Ebola, Lhasa Fever, New and unnamed Kidney destroying diseases.
I don't really see the politicos doing anything about this set of conditions until those politico's come in passing contact with the free roaming illegals and come down with the diseases themselves. Then and only then will it become a cause for them to fight against. While I pray that it does not happen, I can see no way given the current conditions that it will not happen. Don't forget that FEMA is preparing for 200 Million deaths in the United States that should tell the public something. Isn't this a really nice way for the Progressive Socialists and Elites to maintain their stranglehold on power in perpetuity?
I leave you with one more condemnation of the Administration. Taylor let slip that even though the Federal Government has amassed over 6 Billion rounds of ammunition, the Agencies patrolling the Borders will not get any ammunition for their rifles until 2015, and are forbidden from using what they have on hand. It's systematically accounted for on a bullet by bullet basis. Strange isn't it?
This Video is a Critical MUST WATCH VIDEO. Then we must confront the administration at every turn with the information it contains watch it before it gets pulled by the Administration
See Video ( Video courtesy of Little Bonanza Productions. For more information, please contact: lisa@littlebonanzaproductions.com. ); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnkSXosZhic
The information within the video also confirms that the CDC is not working with DHS to screen the sick illegals trying to gain access to the United States. It also confirms the fact that there are many sick people with various types of diseases. He goes on to say these people are disappearing from the masses and they don't know where they are going or if they are being quarantined, they don't know where. This is all being kept from the public supposedly to suppress any panic that would ensue if the public found out just how dangerous to public health this is.
He warns about the massive fronts where the illegals are coming in precludes most of the health screenings for the rare Kidney diseases and even the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, and that the ebola virus looks like it was deliberately planted in those African cities to infect the population because it is working in reverse of it's normal method of infection. Many of the infected people from West Africa that have been exposed to this scourge and many are illegals pouring into Mexico to facilitate their entry into America.
He blasts the administration's ploy to only show the illegals as the helpless children and taking the focus deliberately off the 90+% that have not been caught, so the administration can play on the natural compassion of the American People. This in fact goes hand in hand with the Elites alleged program to use their influence and wealth to reduce the population of the Earth to under 2 Billion, and leaves the United States open to a Deadly Pandemic that could be avoided if the Administration wanted it to be avoided. My conclusion is the buggers actually are working to make the pandemic a reality.
Another thing is the gang members that have committed no crime in the United States are turned free to do their worst here, many of them are infected with communicable diseases too. I have to believe that Obama and his puppet masters like Soros and those above Soros are doing this to completely destroy the United States and take it over politically at a time when the population will be too weak to resist. The members of those gangs that have been found to have communicable diseases are taken by the CDC to places unknown and the diseases are kept secret. Some of the diseases that are speculated on are Antibiotic resistant Tuberculosis, Ebola, Lhasa Fever, New and unnamed Kidney destroying diseases.
I don't really see the politicos doing anything about this set of conditions until those politico's come in passing contact with the free roaming illegals and come down with the diseases themselves. Then and only then will it become a cause for them to fight against. While I pray that it does not happen, I can see no way given the current conditions that it will not happen. Don't forget that FEMA is preparing for 200 Million deaths in the United States that should tell the public something. Isn't this a really nice way for the Progressive Socialists and Elites to maintain their stranglehold on power in perpetuity?
I leave you with one more condemnation of the Administration. Taylor let slip that even though the Federal Government has amassed over 6 Billion rounds of ammunition, the Agencies patrolling the Borders will not get any ammunition for their rifles until 2015, and are forbidden from using what they have on hand. It's systematically accounted for on a bullet by bullet basis. Strange isn't it?
This Video is a Critical MUST WATCH VIDEO. Then we must confront the administration at every turn with the information it contains watch it before it gets pulled by the Administration
See Video ( Video courtesy of Little Bonanza Productions. For more information, please contact: lisa@littlebonanzaproductions.com. ); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnkSXosZhic
While looking through the many sites I haunt looking for information on what is being plotted against America by her Domestic Enemies, and her Foreign Enemies ,I happened to come across this list that refutes the typical rhetoric and lies that are spouted by International Socialism,/Communism by the UN, and by the Domestic Progressive Socialists that are bound and determined to disarm law abiding American Citizens.
They are doing this because when the Elites decide they are the only ones worthy of having entitlements, and move to subjugate the rest of humanity, they are terrified of the consequences of an armed public that has the means to fight back with the distinct possibility that the armed public will be responsible of the demise of those corrupt and twisted Elites.
I know this is an ongoing theme but even back in the silent movie days before the progressive self styled overlords gained control of the media industry movies like Fritz Lang's movie "Metropolis" set in a future society where the Elites ruled and everyone else were relegated to slave laborers to provide the luxuries only the Elites could have warned against the Socialist Agenda of those Elites. It did pan out that way at the Nadir point of Communist Russia under Stalin and held true until the Communist Empire supposedly collapsed.
The bottom line is; Our Guns are the Symbols of our Freedom as my friend McFixit1 once wrote. They are also the only things that stand between us and abject slavery. Answer this question; Do you truly trust the Elites to be fair and honest with you when they hold all the cards and all the methods of forcing you to bend to their wills? If you do, you are a damn fool that deserves to be subjugated. You know nothing about the base side of human nature.
As long as we retain our guns and remove the unconstitutional restrictions that have been placed on them over the last century by those same Elitist Progressive Socialists bent on their own total control agenda's, we will be able to resist them and remove them from power peacefully through the voting process. Should they themselves decide to use force against us to further their wretched evil schemes, we will at least have the means to fight back.
This is the CRUX of why they want to disarm us!
Here is the list of FACTS, many garnered from their own statistics that disprove all of their lies, spin, and misdirection of the truth to make their phony lying case against firearms in the hands of a law abiding public;
Source; http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/07/gun-control-fact-sheet-fa...
Editor’s Note: Take notes and bookmark this link! This list gives you enough facts to demolish the gun-control argument for years to come.
1. Highlights
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.
(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(2)* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America”—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
(3)* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.
(4)* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did “not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”
(5)* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.
(6)* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.
(7) Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.
(8)* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.”
(9)* Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that “less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show.”
(10) And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.
(11)* Several polls show that Americans are very pro-gun. Several scientific polls indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is still revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today. To mention just a few recent polls:* In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of “individuals” to own guns.
(12)* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing “criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime” over legislation to “ban handguns.”
(13)* A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of students” to stop a school massacre.
(14)* A study claiming “guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.
(15) More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.”
(16)* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”
(17)* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
(18) And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States.
The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.
2. Self-defense
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
(19)* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.
(20) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(21)* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
(22)* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
(23)* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America”—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
(24)* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)
(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”
(26)* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
(27)* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.
(28)* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;
(29) If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
(30)* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the “Safest State Award.”
(31)* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.
(32) FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.
(33)* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.* During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
(34)* And even the 155 “crimes” committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.
(35)* Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.
These FACTS will give everyone enough truthful information to refute publicly all the mis-information these political curs spout at their town hall meetings and on their campaign trails. These liars must of necessity be confronted loudly and in public demanding them to back up their lies with facts to prove them, facts they do not have. Only public peaceful confrontation armed with the true facts will resonate with your fellow citizens, and if the Political curs go postal on you, even the better because they will then show their true colors to the public.
Please copy the facts, print them out, and keep them with you so you can have them handy not only to confront the damnable Gun Grabbing Constitution hating Politicians, but also to educate very politely other citizens who have been conditioned by the Progressive owned and operated Media to fully believe the lies and propaganda the Elites have been spouting since the turn of the last century.
We must stop this concerted attack on our Constitutional Rights by misguided or deliberately Anti-Constitutional factions within our government!
The Tradesman
They are doing this because when the Elites decide they are the only ones worthy of having entitlements, and move to subjugate the rest of humanity, they are terrified of the consequences of an armed public that has the means to fight back with the distinct possibility that the armed public will be responsible of the demise of those corrupt and twisted Elites.
I know this is an ongoing theme but even back in the silent movie days before the progressive self styled overlords gained control of the media industry movies like Fritz Lang's movie "Metropolis" set in a future society where the Elites ruled and everyone else were relegated to slave laborers to provide the luxuries only the Elites could have warned against the Socialist Agenda of those Elites. It did pan out that way at the Nadir point of Communist Russia under Stalin and held true until the Communist Empire supposedly collapsed.
The bottom line is; Our Guns are the Symbols of our Freedom as my friend McFixit1 once wrote. They are also the only things that stand between us and abject slavery. Answer this question; Do you truly trust the Elites to be fair and honest with you when they hold all the cards and all the methods of forcing you to bend to their wills? If you do, you are a damn fool that deserves to be subjugated. You know nothing about the base side of human nature.
As long as we retain our guns and remove the unconstitutional restrictions that have been placed on them over the last century by those same Elitist Progressive Socialists bent on their own total control agenda's, we will be able to resist them and remove them from power peacefully through the voting process. Should they themselves decide to use force against us to further their wretched evil schemes, we will at least have the means to fight back.
This is the CRUX of why they want to disarm us!
Here is the list of FACTS, many garnered from their own statistics that disprove all of their lies, spin, and misdirection of the truth to make their phony lying case against firearms in the hands of a law abiding public;
Source; http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/07/gun-control-fact-sheet-fa...
Editor’s Note: Take notes and bookmark this link! This list gives you enough facts to demolish the gun-control argument for years to come.
1. Highlights
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.
(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(2)* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America”—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
(3)* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.
(4)* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did “not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”
(5)* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.
(6)* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.
(7) Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.
(8)* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws.”
(9)* Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that “less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show.”
(10) And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.
(11)* Several polls show that Americans are very pro-gun. Several scientific polls indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is still revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today. To mention just a few recent polls:* In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of “individuals” to own guns.
(12)* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing “criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime” over legislation to “ban handguns.”
(13)* A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of students” to stop a school massacre.
(14)* A study claiming “guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.
(15) More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.”
(16)* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”
(17)* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
(18) And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States.
The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.
2. Self-defense
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
(19)* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.
(20) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(21)* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
(22)* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
(23)* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America”—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
(24)* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)
(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”
(26)* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
(27)* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.
(28)* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;
(29) If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
(30)* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the “Safest State Award.”
(31)* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.
(32) FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.
(33)* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.* During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
(34)* And even the 155 “crimes” committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.
(35)* Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.
These FACTS will give everyone enough truthful information to refute publicly all the mis-information these political curs spout at their town hall meetings and on their campaign trails. These liars must of necessity be confronted loudly and in public demanding them to back up their lies with facts to prove them, facts they do not have. Only public peaceful confrontation armed with the true facts will resonate with your fellow citizens, and if the Political curs go postal on you, even the better because they will then show their true colors to the public.
Please copy the facts, print them out, and keep them with you so you can have them handy not only to confront the damnable Gun Grabbing Constitution hating Politicians, but also to educate very politely other citizens who have been conditioned by the Progressive owned and operated Media to fully believe the lies and propaganda the Elites have been spouting since the turn of the last century.
We must stop this concerted attack on our Constitutional Rights by misguided or deliberately Anti-Constitutional factions within our government!
The Tradesman
Obama's Executive Order Bans Certain Firearms Without Benefit Of Congress Creating Legislation on It.
Guest Editorial by McFixit1
Obama Outlaws AK-47 Rifles With Stroke Of His Unconstitutional Pen
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/obama-outlaws-ak-47-rifles-with...
Obama will see if he can get away with this and continue with others.
Check it out:
Obama exploited the conflict in Ukraine to target the importation of the popular AK line of firearms manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern in Izhmash, Russia. The unconstitutional ban includes the Saiga line of rifles and shotguns.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) attempted to soften the blow by stating the executive order does not outlaw Kalashnikov firearms legally purchased in the United States prior to the ban.
The OFAC, according to its website, “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”
The criminalization of an entire line of foreign manufactured firearms is possible under “national emergency powers” and there is no appeal process.
“Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments,” according to the Treasury Department.
My take on this;
This could work definitely in our favor big time because Obama acted on his own, Usurped Congress, and this being an election year the we know now that the phony sportsmen's bill has been exposed as nothing more than a false flag so Democrats in shaky positions would vote for a do nothing bill disguised as Pro-Gun so they would have something on their voting records to show they were "Pro-Gun" instead of the gun grabbers they really are.
I expect that this 'Executive Order' is something along the same lines as the sportsmen's bill where the Gun Grabbers can raise holy hell about it and demand action to render the "order" Null and Void through another legislative ruse that will have hidden ramifications contained within it that will actually hurt lawful gun owners.
McFixit1
Obama Outlaws AK-47 Rifles With Stroke Of His Unconstitutional Pen
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/obama-outlaws-ak-47-rifles-with...
Obama will see if he can get away with this and continue with others.
Check it out:
Obama exploited the conflict in Ukraine to target the importation of the popular AK line of firearms manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern in Izhmash, Russia. The unconstitutional ban includes the Saiga line of rifles and shotguns.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) attempted to soften the blow by stating the executive order does not outlaw Kalashnikov firearms legally purchased in the United States prior to the ban.
The OFAC, according to its website, “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”
The criminalization of an entire line of foreign manufactured firearms is possible under “national emergency powers” and there is no appeal process.
“Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments,” according to the Treasury Department.
My take on this;
This could work definitely in our favor big time because Obama acted on his own, Usurped Congress, and this being an election year the we know now that the phony sportsmen's bill has been exposed as nothing more than a false flag so Democrats in shaky positions would vote for a do nothing bill disguised as Pro-Gun so they would have something on their voting records to show they were "Pro-Gun" instead of the gun grabbers they really are.
I expect that this 'Executive Order' is something along the same lines as the sportsmen's bill where the Gun Grabbers can raise holy hell about it and demand action to render the "order" Null and Void through another legislative ruse that will have hidden ramifications contained within it that will actually hurt lawful gun owners.
McFixit1
Letter to the editor that the paper refused to print
Posted by Jack Coleman on July 15,2014 at 4:29pm in Tea Party Nation Forum and reprinted with permission.
For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in the Orange County Paper ...
Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help, it will get published via cyberspace!
From: "David"
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!! LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!!
Posted by Jack Coleman on July 15,2014 at 4:29pm in Tea Party Nation Forum and reprinted with permission.
For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in the Orange County Paper ...
Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help, it will get published via cyberspace!
From: "David"
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!! LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!!
We know the growth of federal power and debt is out of control. But the answer is not just sending a few new politicians in Washington in the next election or two. Washington politicians are unlikely to reform themselves without new limits on their power.
The long term answer is for the 34 most limited-government minded states to work together, as the authors of the Constitution intended, to take power away from Washington and restore limited government, just as the states originally forced Congress to propose the Bill of Rights,
And volunteers like us could make it happen!
We need a new design for the kitchen and a new kind of nourishment, not just new waiters serving the same old story that giving power to politicians in Washington will solve our problems.
These problems of federal power and debt can't be solved just by electing a new Congress, or even just by electing a new President for a few years, important as those missions are.
Too many Members of Congress are too afraid to hard of the unpopular budget choices necessary to restore fiscal sanity and limit our growing debt. States need to come to agreement on what they want and force Congress to propose a balanced budget or fiscal discipline amendment.
States have forced Congress to propose Amendments states want three times in American history, starting with the Bill of Rights.
Presidential power to dictate by regulation will also grow over time unless the states act to permanently rein it in by forcing Congress to propose an Amendment to limit the President's power by requiring that major new regulations be approved by Congress.
2 Governors and more than 100 state legislators now support such a "Regulation Freedom Amendment" which could be the first, easiest to agree on, step towards restoring the power of states to force Congress to propose an Amendment.
If 34 states can come to agreement on and force Congress to propose even one Amendment now, Congress will wake up every morning worried about what the states might do next. And that will help restore a balance of state and federal power and make Congress more accountable to the states and the people on a whole range of issues,
Agreement among states on an Amendment like the Regulation Freedom Amendment is possible. 30 states have Republican majorities or pro-energy Democrat majorities that dislike federal regulators. The leadership in four more states could change hands in 2014. That would add up to 34 states needed to force Congress to act.
But, empowering and mobilizing states won't happen by waiting for leadership from Congress and big Washington-focused special interests that finance and depend on Members of Congress for their hand outs, contracts, and tax beaks.
These things will happen ONLY if grassroots people rise up and demand that their STATE LEGISLATORS take back the power that the authors of the Constitution gave them to rein in the abuse of power in Washington!
Too many Members of Congress, safe from challenge with huge campaign funds, big staffs to pander to their constituents and safe districts are not easily convinced to give up power or make hard choices.
But state legislators in most states would be eager to rein in Washington, if grassroots and business leaders in their districts ASKED them and SHOWED them how it could be done.
A team of ordinary people who are not millionaires or movie stars, people just like us, could contact and mobilize hundreds if not thousands of those grassroots group leaders, just by talking to them and getting them just to endorse, for a start, the idea that Congress should propose the Regulation Freedom Amendment, to end "regulation without representation".
A list of a 1000 such leaders, 30 from each of 34 states, would get the attention of state legislators.
Our team of volunteers is developing lists of contact information for people who lead groups in the Tea Party, Republican Federated Women, among Republican and conservative youth and in business associations.
But we need more volunteers to help us make those personal calls, and send the follow-up personal emails!
Madison and even Hamilton would be astonished, not at the abuse of power in Washington..they expected that might happen. They would be astonished that more state legislators were not acting and that more citizens were not DEMANDING action.
In a Republic like ours, it's OUR responsibility to act when things get out of control in the nation's capitol.
We all need to spend time helping elect good people, especially right before election day.
But the future of the nation may depend on whether people like us start thinking not just about good candidates for the next election, but about restoring a Constitutional balance of power for the next generation and beyond.
We need leaders and must become leaders who will work to restore our system of checks and balances by Constitutionally taking power away from Washington.
If we don't act to save our Republic, who will?
Do you know anyone who would like to join us in taking action?
Do you know anyone who would like to send this article or a similar one to their friends or publish it in a local publication?
Would you like to help us take back our nation?
Contact us
202 255 5000
Leaders@MadisonCoalition.Org
www.RegulationFreedom.Org
The long term answer is for the 34 most limited-government minded states to work together, as the authors of the Constitution intended, to take power away from Washington and restore limited government, just as the states originally forced Congress to propose the Bill of Rights,
And volunteers like us could make it happen!
We need a new design for the kitchen and a new kind of nourishment, not just new waiters serving the same old story that giving power to politicians in Washington will solve our problems.
These problems of federal power and debt can't be solved just by electing a new Congress, or even just by electing a new President for a few years, important as those missions are.
Too many Members of Congress are too afraid to hard of the unpopular budget choices necessary to restore fiscal sanity and limit our growing debt. States need to come to agreement on what they want and force Congress to propose a balanced budget or fiscal discipline amendment.
States have forced Congress to propose Amendments states want three times in American history, starting with the Bill of Rights.
Presidential power to dictate by regulation will also grow over time unless the states act to permanently rein it in by forcing Congress to propose an Amendment to limit the President's power by requiring that major new regulations be approved by Congress.
2 Governors and more than 100 state legislators now support such a "Regulation Freedom Amendment" which could be the first, easiest to agree on, step towards restoring the power of states to force Congress to propose an Amendment.
If 34 states can come to agreement on and force Congress to propose even one Amendment now, Congress will wake up every morning worried about what the states might do next. And that will help restore a balance of state and federal power and make Congress more accountable to the states and the people on a whole range of issues,
Agreement among states on an Amendment like the Regulation Freedom Amendment is possible. 30 states have Republican majorities or pro-energy Democrat majorities that dislike federal regulators. The leadership in four more states could change hands in 2014. That would add up to 34 states needed to force Congress to act.
But, empowering and mobilizing states won't happen by waiting for leadership from Congress and big Washington-focused special interests that finance and depend on Members of Congress for their hand outs, contracts, and tax beaks.
These things will happen ONLY if grassroots people rise up and demand that their STATE LEGISLATORS take back the power that the authors of the Constitution gave them to rein in the abuse of power in Washington!
Too many Members of Congress, safe from challenge with huge campaign funds, big staffs to pander to their constituents and safe districts are not easily convinced to give up power or make hard choices.
But state legislators in most states would be eager to rein in Washington, if grassroots and business leaders in their districts ASKED them and SHOWED them how it could be done.
A team of ordinary people who are not millionaires or movie stars, people just like us, could contact and mobilize hundreds if not thousands of those grassroots group leaders, just by talking to them and getting them just to endorse, for a start, the idea that Congress should propose the Regulation Freedom Amendment, to end "regulation without representation".
A list of a 1000 such leaders, 30 from each of 34 states, would get the attention of state legislators.
Our team of volunteers is developing lists of contact information for people who lead groups in the Tea Party, Republican Federated Women, among Republican and conservative youth and in business associations.
But we need more volunteers to help us make those personal calls, and send the follow-up personal emails!
Madison and even Hamilton would be astonished, not at the abuse of power in Washington..they expected that might happen. They would be astonished that more state legislators were not acting and that more citizens were not DEMANDING action.
In a Republic like ours, it's OUR responsibility to act when things get out of control in the nation's capitol.
We all need to spend time helping elect good people, especially right before election day.
But the future of the nation may depend on whether people like us start thinking not just about good candidates for the next election, but about restoring a Constitutional balance of power for the next generation and beyond.
We need leaders and must become leaders who will work to restore our system of checks and balances by Constitutionally taking power away from Washington.
If we don't act to save our Republic, who will?
Do you know anyone who would like to join us in taking action?
Do you know anyone who would like to send this article or a similar one to their friends or publish it in a local publication?
Would you like to help us take back our nation?
Contact us
202 255 5000
Leaders@MadisonCoalition.Org
www.RegulationFreedom.Org
Something From New Freedom 2014
here is something I found at www.newfreedom2014.com. I think it should be comtemplated carefully and then have the meanings transmitted to Congress and the Administration to let them know just how serious we are taking their transgressions and how much we disagree with their Elitist views. This is a good example of what is waiting for them down the road if they don't straighten out their act and obey the Constitutional Enumerated powers and the Constitutional restrictions placed on them by our Founding Document.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to opinions of mankind requires that they declare causes which impel them to separation.
We Declare:
Our ultimate devotion is to Our Nature’s God, Creator of Heaven and Earth
That our natural rights and liberties come from God, only to be protected by government. We are one nation under God.
United States of America is a Republic.
That the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law in the United States instituted by man looking into GOD’S Divine Providence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, laying it’s foundations on such principles and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them to seem most likely to effect their safety, happiness and God given freedoms. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves to abolishing the forms to which they are established.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to reject such government, and to provide new representatives for their future security. Such has been the patient suffering of these states. And such is now is the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let the facts be submitted to a candid world:
They have refused his assent to the laws, the Constitution of these United States, Bill of Rights, and recognition of God, the most wholesome necessary for public good.
They have forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be attained, and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them. They have refused to pass laws for the accommodations of we the people.
They have passed laws without reading the bills.
They have dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people by issuing executive orders
They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be illegally elected, whereby legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion without and convulsions within.
They have endeavored to prevent the legal population of these states; For that purpose, obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others encouraging their migrations hither.
They have obstructed the administration of justice, making judges depend on their will for the tenure of their office.
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither, swarms of administrators and officers, to harass our people, and eat out our substance
They have kept amongst us in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of legislator. They have affected to render, military, independent of and superior to civil power, and allowed standing armies in foreign nations.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation working to place the United Nations over of and controlling we the people.
For quartering large bodies of standing armies and foreign troops among us in times of peace , and expanding civil police patrol. For protecting Federal authorities from punishment for any murder they should commit on the inhabitants.
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, declaring us guilty, and for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with powers to legislate for all cases whatsoever.
For establishing herein, an Arbitrary Government, enlarging it’s boundaries and powers, as to render it a fit instrument for introducing the absolute rule of that government into the sovereignty of We the People and Our States
They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging the I.R.S. against us.
For transporting large armies and foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, endless wars, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of leading a civilized nation.
They have constrained our citizens the right to keep and bear arms in their country, to become executioners of their friends and brethren. Or to fall themselves by their hands.
They have excited domestic insurrections and civil discomfort amongst us.
They have served the interest of the bank and corporations and not the people.
They have allowed the executive office to implement decisions without approval of congress or the people
They have allowed tax monies to be passed into the hands of foreign nations and our enemies.
They have funded endless wars and created endless debt
They have grossly invaded our personal privacy
They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, invaded foreign nations, and destroyed the lives of our people
For taking away our charters, abolishing our God given laws, and altering fundamentally, the forms of our government, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble and peaceful terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act, which may define a tyrannical government, unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We have asked them time and time again not to extend unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation and hold them, as we hold all mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We the people, the representatives of the United States of America, assembled and appealing to the supreme judge of the world for rectitude, do, in these states, solemnly publish and declare that we the people ought to be free and independent citizens, that we are absolved from all allegiance with the United Nations and with any policy of Federal government that infringes on our God given rights, our liberties, and our prosperity. And that as free and independent states we have the full power to establish a militia, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states have the right to do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, recognizing that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and hold our allegiance thereof.
We the People will hold allegiance to this declaration until a Constitutional Republic is re-established and efforts are made toward the following demands;
These demands are stated by the people, the governance of the United States of America:
To balance the budget without tax increases and to cap annual spending
To gradually reduce financial aid to foreign nations via U.S. taxpayer dollars
To secure our borders from invasion, it’s primary duty.
To recognize state sovereignty and not to intrude in their internal affairs
To nullify laws that stand against the US Constitution
To recognize that it is not in the duty of government to be responsible for healthcare.
To recognize the unborn is person thus to receive protection from the government.
To recognize that marriage is a covenant of God between one man and one woman for their lifetime not to be divorced for just any reason
To uphold the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as the highest law of the land.
WE THE PEOPLE, ONCE AGAIN, GOVERN THIS NATION
Do not misconstrue this as a call for Revolution, because it is not intended to be such. It is intended to be a dire warning to our hired hands in the Federal Government to warn them that we have had enough of the usurpations and will tolerate no more of them. This is to let them know we are coming for them in November and will continue to come for them in subsequent Novembers until they have been purged from power in OUR Republic.
See the original posting and document graphic at; http://www.newfreedom2014.com/
Tradesman
We Declare:
Our ultimate devotion is to Our Nature’s God, Creator of Heaven and Earth
That our natural rights and liberties come from God, only to be protected by government. We are one nation under God.
United States of America is a Republic.
That the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law in the United States instituted by man looking into GOD’S Divine Providence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, laying it’s foundations on such principles and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them to seem most likely to effect their safety, happiness and God given freedoms. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves to abolishing the forms to which they are established.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to reject such government, and to provide new representatives for their future security. Such has been the patient suffering of these states. And such is now is the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let the facts be submitted to a candid world:
They have refused his assent to the laws, the Constitution of these United States, Bill of Rights, and recognition of God, the most wholesome necessary for public good.
They have forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be attained, and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them. They have refused to pass laws for the accommodations of we the people.
They have passed laws without reading the bills.
They have dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people by issuing executive orders
They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be illegally elected, whereby legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion without and convulsions within.
They have endeavored to prevent the legal population of these states; For that purpose, obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others encouraging their migrations hither.
They have obstructed the administration of justice, making judges depend on their will for the tenure of their office.
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither, swarms of administrators and officers, to harass our people, and eat out our substance
They have kept amongst us in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of legislator. They have affected to render, military, independent of and superior to civil power, and allowed standing armies in foreign nations.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation working to place the United Nations over of and controlling we the people.
For quartering large bodies of standing armies and foreign troops among us in times of peace , and expanding civil police patrol. For protecting Federal authorities from punishment for any murder they should commit on the inhabitants.
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, declaring us guilty, and for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with powers to legislate for all cases whatsoever.
For establishing herein, an Arbitrary Government, enlarging it’s boundaries and powers, as to render it a fit instrument for introducing the absolute rule of that government into the sovereignty of We the People and Our States
They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging the I.R.S. against us.
For transporting large armies and foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, endless wars, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of leading a civilized nation.
They have constrained our citizens the right to keep and bear arms in their country, to become executioners of their friends and brethren. Or to fall themselves by their hands.
They have excited domestic insurrections and civil discomfort amongst us.
They have served the interest of the bank and corporations and not the people.
They have allowed the executive office to implement decisions without approval of congress or the people
They have allowed tax monies to be passed into the hands of foreign nations and our enemies.
They have funded endless wars and created endless debt
They have grossly invaded our personal privacy
They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, invaded foreign nations, and destroyed the lives of our people
For taking away our charters, abolishing our God given laws, and altering fundamentally, the forms of our government, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble and peaceful terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act, which may define a tyrannical government, unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We have asked them time and time again not to extend unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation and hold them, as we hold all mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We the people, the representatives of the United States of America, assembled and appealing to the supreme judge of the world for rectitude, do, in these states, solemnly publish and declare that we the people ought to be free and independent citizens, that we are absolved from all allegiance with the United Nations and with any policy of Federal government that infringes on our God given rights, our liberties, and our prosperity. And that as free and independent states we have the full power to establish a militia, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states have the right to do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, recognizing that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and hold our allegiance thereof.
We the People will hold allegiance to this declaration until a Constitutional Republic is re-established and efforts are made toward the following demands;
These demands are stated by the people, the governance of the United States of America:
To balance the budget without tax increases and to cap annual spending
To gradually reduce financial aid to foreign nations via U.S. taxpayer dollars
To secure our borders from invasion, it’s primary duty.
To recognize state sovereignty and not to intrude in their internal affairs
To nullify laws that stand against the US Constitution
To recognize that it is not in the duty of government to be responsible for healthcare.
To recognize the unborn is person thus to receive protection from the government.
To recognize that marriage is a covenant of God between one man and one woman for their lifetime not to be divorced for just any reason
To uphold the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as the highest law of the land.
WE THE PEOPLE, ONCE AGAIN, GOVERN THIS NATION
Do not misconstrue this as a call for Revolution, because it is not intended to be such. It is intended to be a dire warning to our hired hands in the Federal Government to warn them that we have had enough of the usurpations and will tolerate no more of them. This is to let them know we are coming for them in November and will continue to come for them in subsequent Novembers until they have been purged from power in OUR Republic.
See the original posting and document graphic at; http://www.newfreedom2014.com/
Tradesman
It was firmly believed by our Founding Fathers that Mankind had certain Unalienable Rights, it should still be believed by us. They also believed that those Unalienable Rights were bestowed on mankind by an act of Nature's God. Basically, The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. In the Preamble it states;"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." As was said, this was the fundamental purpose of the Constitution and the defining principles of all that came after it in the Constitution. I fully believe that it should retain that purpose for any additions or subtractions from that constitution through it's amendments. I also believe our corrupt leadership is trying to negate that basic set of purposes and bend America to their own ends for their own profit and aggrandizement. Another thing the Founders made clear through the wording of the Preamble, the wording of the Constitution, and the wording of the Bill of Rights, is the presumption of protecting pre-existing Freedoms rather than the government granting those freedoms and liberty. Since the Founding Fathers believed these Freedoms, Liberties, and Unalienable Rights came from Natures God, it also presumed the one truly unique thing that God bestowed on mankind. I believe that was God's gift of Free Will. The implied presumption of Free Will, codified within the guiding principles of the Constitution, is what gives it the unique factors all true and honorable Americans believe in and adhere to. In fact it has become the guiding light striven for by the rest the world since America came into being. Those presumptions in the last several decades have come under attack by the forces that would deny mankind it's Unalienable rights, just so those inimical forces could rule the world in their ideal image. I have been wont to say that I believe God helps those who help themselves. That means since God gave mankind Free Will, God will not interfere in what decisions humans make, good or bad, using their Free Will. To do so would negate the essence of Free Will for mankind to choose between good and evil, if he did interfere. I also believe that God will try and guide us down the right path, but will not impose his will to make us go down it. Now we come to the current issues. If we look at the 'HELP and Assistance' the so called Progressive Faction is giving, complete with ironclad strings attached. We can see where their doing that, negates Free Will. It negates Free Will because the ones who give this False Help are bent of deciding for us; what,when,why,where,how,and to who, we are going to do anything and/or everything. In my estimation that is the true underlying evil of the Progressive Factions of Socialism, Fascism, and Communism. It is also the reason why those things do not work when imposed on or dictated to mankind by those factions. For a small faction of actual Dictators, under whatever guise or claims of benevolence, to proscribe all of our actions with their decisions, flies in the face of that God given Free Will. That is why it must be strenuously opposed to the bitter end if necessary. McFixit1
The Tradesman
This country is still majority Christian. Let's stand together and demand to be recognized as a nation built on Christianity.
Christians need to come together as a nation.
This is an appeal to Christians and those sympathetic to Christianity. This message isn't intended to offend anybody, just felt what I'm about to say needed saying.
If you love your Lord first I hope you will appreciate this message. If you don't, sorry if I judged you wrongly.
When we get 100,000,000 (one hundred million) willing Christians to BOND together, to voice their concerns and to vote, we can take America back -- with God's help. Become one of the One hundred million...
Then let's get 200 million, by sending this email to all as many people as you can. Do the math. It only takes a willing heart and a fed up soul.
God Bless America and Shine Your light on Her..
Remember, In 1952, when President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, in 1988, when President Reagan Designated the First Thursday in May, each year, as The National Day of Prayer?
-----------------------------------------------
Remember, in June 2007, when (then) Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared the USA "Was no longer a Christian nation?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, this year, when President Obama canceled the 21st annual National Day Of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the ruse Of "not wanting to offend anyone?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember September 25, 2009, From 4 AM until 7 PM, the National Day of Prayer FOR MUSLIMS being held on Capitol Hill? Beside the White House? There were over 50,000 Muslims in D.C.
It obviously didn't matter whether "Christians" were offended by the Muslim only prayer day event - We obviously Don't count as "anyone" anymore, as demonstrated by continuing efforts to discredit almost anything 'Christian.'
The direction this country is taking should strike fear in the heart of every Christian, especially knowing that many Muslims believe non-Muslims unwilling to convert to Islam, should be annihilated - as in Nigeria,Sudan and other countries, as I write.
Send this to ten people And the person who Sent it to you!...To let them know that it was sent to many more.
Author Unknown
AMERICANS NEED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDER SUSPENSION
- not one branch honors the Limits on them contained in the Constitution so we have created 20 words that will change the way we live.
Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The article shall be inoperative unless it, [Section 1]; shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the conventions in several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof, to the States by the Congress.
PLEASE READ ON.....
Halbig Lawsuit Dismissed: Federal Judge Upholds Health Insurance Premium Tax Credits
A Washington federal court’s recent ruling on the validity of premium tax credits confirmed what most people have assumed since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law in 2010: the original intent of the law was to make premium tax credits available in all states to help make insurance affordable, regardless of whether the marketplace is operated by the state or the federal government. Opponents of the ACA claimed (and Judge Friedman disagreed) that one sentence in the law proved otherwise—that the ACA should be read to limit premium tax credits only to state-run exchanges.
The court’s opinion dispassionately and systematically dismantles this argument, one of the last remaining tactics that opponents of the ACA have deployed in their efforts to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the law.
Opponents have openly stated that the Halbig case is part of a multi-pronged strategy to undermine the law. In an October 2013 op-ed, Michael Cannon, of the libertarian Cato Institute, outlined ways to undermine the ACA. Lawsuits like Halbig are the number two tool in his toolkit. Furthermore, Cannon and his colleagues have tirelessly promoted their strategy elsewhere. And the Attorneys General of Indiana and Oklahoma have filed similar lawsuits, while a fourth case is pending in Virginia. All make a similar argument as Halbig.
Cannon and his colleagues are correct on one point: if courts were to conclude that tax credits were not available in states with federally-run marketplaces, health insurance would be unaffordable for most people in those states and the marketplace would cease to function. But, as demonstrated in Judge Friedman’s Halbig ruling, their legal argument falls apart upon examination.
The basis for these cases depends entirely on taking one sentence of the entire ACA and pulling it out of context. As Judge Friedman notes, that’s not how courts, or anyone, is supposed to determine how a law works. The text of a law must be read in context. Once you examine the whole law, it’s clear that Congress intended that premium tax credits be available to everyone in all states, regardless of whether the states or the federal government operate the exchange. Otherwise, why would the federal government have been instructed to operate an exchange to begin with? Nicholas Bagley at the Incidental Economist has a good summary of the analysis (thanks to Ezra Klein for spotting it).
But probably the boldest argument in these lawsuits is their claim that Congress actually intended all along to limit the availability of tax credits only to people living in states that set up their own exchange. They argue that Congress wanted to threaten states into setting up their own exchanges. But they have been unable to produce any evidence to support this claim – because there isn’t any. Jonathan Cohn took this argument apart over a year ago in The Legal Crusade to Undermine Obamacare – and Rewrite History, and we at Families USA did the same in an amicus brief filed in the Halbig case. In fact, as Judge Friedman noted in his opinion, if anything, the history shows that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available everywhere.
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act should not be complacent. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, another libertarian think tank, has already said it will appeal (which is curious, because the Competitive Enterprise Institute is not actually listed as a party or attorney on the case). Three other cases are still pending in Virginia, Indiana, and Oklahoma. But the Halbig ruling is a welcome and much-needed dose of rationality in the overheated rhetorical battles over the legitimacy and future of the Affordable Care Act.
http://familiesusa.org/blog/2014/01/halbig-lawsuit-dismissed-federal-judge-upholds-health-insurance-premium-tax-credits
Here is a complete discussion on the case . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/what-the-district-court-got-wrong-and-right-in-halbig-v-sebelius/
The Halbig case
As some of you know, I'm a litigant in the Halbig case and am one of a handful of Davids fighting the federal government Goliath over Obamacare.
The Halbig case is over another example of how the lawless Obama administration has violated the separation of powers doctrine and usurped the role of Congress by changing and rewriting laws when the actual wording of those laws turned out not to suit their purposes.
The ACA, as passed by Congress, expressly says that federal subsidies will be available only to those who enroll "through an Exchange established by the State." It is the payment of that subsidy then that triggers the employer penalty. So, states that refused to set up exchanges should by law be exempt from receiving the federal subsidies under the ACA, as well as being exempt from the employer penalties imposed under this act.
After the law was passed, the administration was completely caught off guard when 33 states exercised their congressionally-created option to not create an exchange, in order to spare their businesses from the employer mandate and their citizens from the Indididual mandate.
They erroneously thought that the promise of boat loads of federal money paid to the states in subsidies would preclude any states from opting out of the program. Boy, were they wrong. Once again, they had miscalculated.
So, in order to close this loop hole that Congress had written in to the law, the Obama administration and the IRS decided to change the wording of the law, so that the employer penalties could be imposed and subsidies paid, even in states with federal exchanges, even though the original law had limited these triggers to state established exchanges.
The modus operandi of this administration has always been, if you don't like a law just ignore it or rewrite it.
Recap:
1. The ACA authorizes subsidies and penalties only in states that chose to set up their own state healthcare exchanges.
2. Under the Act, businesses in states like Texas that chose not to participate should be exempt from these penalties.
3. After the law was passed, The IRS rewrote the law without authorization from Congress and expanded those penalties to cover even states that refused to set up exchanges.
4. Agencies are bound by the laws enacted by Congress. Even the IRS is not permitted to rewrite laws duly passed by the legislative branch.
5. Despite all this, the Obama administration and the IRS violated the separation of powers and became a de facto Congress when they rewrote the law. The executive branch is charged with executing the laws actually passed by congress, not the laws they wished were passed by congress.
This case is currently in the Federal Appeals court, and the decision should be rendered any day, so hopefully we can post the court's decision on our website next week. (Decision was rendered and starts this article.)
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/PPACA%20complaint.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
Obamacare and what is being done to fight it.
Pros and cons of various initiatives being taken by employers and others to attempt to minimize the horrific damage on employers and employees by Obamacare.
Employers are already struggling with this law even though full implementation has been postponed until 2015-2016. They're faced with Additional paperwork, increased employee premiums, increased admin cost, a constantly changing playing field, and being forced to cut employees hours to try to control the additional cost. Just to mention a few.
Here are four Employer initiatives you'll see being pushed through Congress.
1. Redefining the 30 hour full-time rule. Employers want to change the definition of fulltime employment back from 30 hours to 40 hours, like it has been for years. Under Obamacare, fulltime was dropped from 40 hours to 30 hours per week.
In March, the House of Representatives passed the "Save American Workers Act," which changes the health care law's full-time definition back To 40 hours. The However, that bill has been ignored by the Senate.
2. Doubling the small business exemption from 50 to 100 employees, so that firms with fewer than 100 full time equivalent (FTE) workers would not be required to offer health insurance.
3. Creating a bare bones copper plan. There are currently 4 tiers of plans: Bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. We are seeing legislative proposals to add a copper plan that would have lower premiums than the bronze plan, which now provides the lowest level of acceptable coverage.
Obama has thus far nixed this idea, but that could come back into play down the road when a large number of people drop coverage because of the increasing costs.
4. Eliminating the 40% tax on Cadillac plans. Cadillac plans are very cushy benefit plans with all the bells and whistles offered by many unions and large companies. Since the 40% tax on Cadillac plans does not start until 2018, you may not have seen much action on this yet. However, you definitely will see a push to overturn this portion of the law, by unions and large employers well before 2018.
While all four of these measures would certainly help employers and employees survive short term, supporting them may be like watering a weed garden. They might help the ACA become even more deeply rooted and make it that much more difficult to uproot in the future. It may be wiser to avoid the trap of trying to make Obamacare less painful and continue to push for its total abolition.
Two ways to push for abolishing Obamacare that may be more prudent alternatives are:
1. Using Article V of the US Constitution to override Congress and completely abolish Obamacare. Article V gives the states the power to override the President, Congress and the Supreme Court when they have refused to abide by the will of the people. The founders gave us a mechanism by which we can return the power from the Federal government to the states; Lets use it.
2. Forcefully and consistently lobby Congress to use the power of the purse strings to defund Obamacare.
Meanwhile, let's work hard to elect commited representatives to the House and Senate in 2014, who will be unequivocal about repealing Obamacare.
Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The article shall be inoperative unless it, [Section 1]; shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the conventions in several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof, to the States by the Congress.
PLEASE READ ON.....
Halbig Lawsuit Dismissed: Federal Judge Upholds Health Insurance Premium Tax Credits
A Washington federal court’s recent ruling on the validity of premium tax credits confirmed what most people have assumed since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law in 2010: the original intent of the law was to make premium tax credits available in all states to help make insurance affordable, regardless of whether the marketplace is operated by the state or the federal government. Opponents of the ACA claimed (and Judge Friedman disagreed) that one sentence in the law proved otherwise—that the ACA should be read to limit premium tax credits only to state-run exchanges.
The court’s opinion dispassionately and systematically dismantles this argument, one of the last remaining tactics that opponents of the ACA have deployed in their efforts to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the law.
Opponents have openly stated that the Halbig case is part of a multi-pronged strategy to undermine the law. In an October 2013 op-ed, Michael Cannon, of the libertarian Cato Institute, outlined ways to undermine the ACA. Lawsuits like Halbig are the number two tool in his toolkit. Furthermore, Cannon and his colleagues have tirelessly promoted their strategy elsewhere. And the Attorneys General of Indiana and Oklahoma have filed similar lawsuits, while a fourth case is pending in Virginia. All make a similar argument as Halbig.
Cannon and his colleagues are correct on one point: if courts were to conclude that tax credits were not available in states with federally-run marketplaces, health insurance would be unaffordable for most people in those states and the marketplace would cease to function. But, as demonstrated in Judge Friedman’s Halbig ruling, their legal argument falls apart upon examination.
The basis for these cases depends entirely on taking one sentence of the entire ACA and pulling it out of context. As Judge Friedman notes, that’s not how courts, or anyone, is supposed to determine how a law works. The text of a law must be read in context. Once you examine the whole law, it’s clear that Congress intended that premium tax credits be available to everyone in all states, regardless of whether the states or the federal government operate the exchange. Otherwise, why would the federal government have been instructed to operate an exchange to begin with? Nicholas Bagley at the Incidental Economist has a good summary of the analysis (thanks to Ezra Klein for spotting it).
But probably the boldest argument in these lawsuits is their claim that Congress actually intended all along to limit the availability of tax credits only to people living in states that set up their own exchange. They argue that Congress wanted to threaten states into setting up their own exchanges. But they have been unable to produce any evidence to support this claim – because there isn’t any. Jonathan Cohn took this argument apart over a year ago in The Legal Crusade to Undermine Obamacare – and Rewrite History, and we at Families USA did the same in an amicus brief filed in the Halbig case. In fact, as Judge Friedman noted in his opinion, if anything, the history shows that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available everywhere.
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act should not be complacent. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, another libertarian think tank, has already said it will appeal (which is curious, because the Competitive Enterprise Institute is not actually listed as a party or attorney on the case). Three other cases are still pending in Virginia, Indiana, and Oklahoma. But the Halbig ruling is a welcome and much-needed dose of rationality in the overheated rhetorical battles over the legitimacy and future of the Affordable Care Act.
http://familiesusa.org/blog/2014/01/halbig-lawsuit-dismissed-federal-judge-upholds-health-insurance-premium-tax-credits
Here is a complete discussion on the case . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/what-the-district-court-got-wrong-and-right-in-halbig-v-sebelius/
The Halbig case
As some of you know, I'm a litigant in the Halbig case and am one of a handful of Davids fighting the federal government Goliath over Obamacare.
The Halbig case is over another example of how the lawless Obama administration has violated the separation of powers doctrine and usurped the role of Congress by changing and rewriting laws when the actual wording of those laws turned out not to suit their purposes.
The ACA, as passed by Congress, expressly says that federal subsidies will be available only to those who enroll "through an Exchange established by the State." It is the payment of that subsidy then that triggers the employer penalty. So, states that refused to set up exchanges should by law be exempt from receiving the federal subsidies under the ACA, as well as being exempt from the employer penalties imposed under this act.
After the law was passed, the administration was completely caught off guard when 33 states exercised their congressionally-created option to not create an exchange, in order to spare their businesses from the employer mandate and their citizens from the Indididual mandate.
They erroneously thought that the promise of boat loads of federal money paid to the states in subsidies would preclude any states from opting out of the program. Boy, were they wrong. Once again, they had miscalculated.
So, in order to close this loop hole that Congress had written in to the law, the Obama administration and the IRS decided to change the wording of the law, so that the employer penalties could be imposed and subsidies paid, even in states with federal exchanges, even though the original law had limited these triggers to state established exchanges.
The modus operandi of this administration has always been, if you don't like a law just ignore it or rewrite it.
Recap:
1. The ACA authorizes subsidies and penalties only in states that chose to set up their own state healthcare exchanges.
2. Under the Act, businesses in states like Texas that chose not to participate should be exempt from these penalties.
3. After the law was passed, The IRS rewrote the law without authorization from Congress and expanded those penalties to cover even states that refused to set up exchanges.
4. Agencies are bound by the laws enacted by Congress. Even the IRS is not permitted to rewrite laws duly passed by the legislative branch.
5. Despite all this, the Obama administration and the IRS violated the separation of powers and became a de facto Congress when they rewrote the law. The executive branch is charged with executing the laws actually passed by congress, not the laws they wished were passed by congress.
This case is currently in the Federal Appeals court, and the decision should be rendered any day, so hopefully we can post the court's decision on our website next week. (Decision was rendered and starts this article.)
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/PPACA%20complaint.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
Obamacare and what is being done to fight it.
Pros and cons of various initiatives being taken by employers and others to attempt to minimize the horrific damage on employers and employees by Obamacare.
Employers are already struggling with this law even though full implementation has been postponed until 2015-2016. They're faced with Additional paperwork, increased employee premiums, increased admin cost, a constantly changing playing field, and being forced to cut employees hours to try to control the additional cost. Just to mention a few.
Here are four Employer initiatives you'll see being pushed through Congress.
1. Redefining the 30 hour full-time rule. Employers want to change the definition of fulltime employment back from 30 hours to 40 hours, like it has been for years. Under Obamacare, fulltime was dropped from 40 hours to 30 hours per week.
In March, the House of Representatives passed the "Save American Workers Act," which changes the health care law's full-time definition back To 40 hours. The However, that bill has been ignored by the Senate.
2. Doubling the small business exemption from 50 to 100 employees, so that firms with fewer than 100 full time equivalent (FTE) workers would not be required to offer health insurance.
3. Creating a bare bones copper plan. There are currently 4 tiers of plans: Bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. We are seeing legislative proposals to add a copper plan that would have lower premiums than the bronze plan, which now provides the lowest level of acceptable coverage.
Obama has thus far nixed this idea, but that could come back into play down the road when a large number of people drop coverage because of the increasing costs.
4. Eliminating the 40% tax on Cadillac plans. Cadillac plans are very cushy benefit plans with all the bells and whistles offered by many unions and large companies. Since the 40% tax on Cadillac plans does not start until 2018, you may not have seen much action on this yet. However, you definitely will see a push to overturn this portion of the law, by unions and large employers well before 2018.
While all four of these measures would certainly help employers and employees survive short term, supporting them may be like watering a weed garden. They might help the ACA become even more deeply rooted and make it that much more difficult to uproot in the future. It may be wiser to avoid the trap of trying to make Obamacare less painful and continue to push for its total abolition.
Two ways to push for abolishing Obamacare that may be more prudent alternatives are:
1. Using Article V of the US Constitution to override Congress and completely abolish Obamacare. Article V gives the states the power to override the President, Congress and the Supreme Court when they have refused to abide by the will of the people. The founders gave us a mechanism by which we can return the power from the Federal government to the states; Lets use it.
2. Forcefully and consistently lobby Congress to use the power of the purse strings to defund Obamacare.
Meanwhile, let's work hard to elect commited representatives to the House and Senate in 2014, who will be unequivocal about repealing Obamacare.
Political Correctness And It's Effect On Elections And Other Cherished American Traditions
I realize that many people don't even think about the Political Correctness that has been imposed on the American Public. Every time we deliberately or unthinkingly utilize the approved Political Correctness Forms or Format in our daily lives, that action works exactly the way the Progressives want it to work by weakening the First Amendment. It also weakens the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and by association, the entire Constitution.
I have a question to ask you all;Do you know why the First Amendment was put in to protect Freedom of Speech? Was it to insure that you could feel free and safe to express your opinions? Was it to insure that you could safely oppose the politicians in power without fear of Retribution from them? Was it so the News Media could report the truth without being censured? Are you beginning to see how Political Correctness is being used to censure and stop all opposition to the Powerful Elites and their Agendas?
Political Correctness is insidious and often mistaken for manners. In fact Political Correctness is simply Fascism pretending to be manners to stifle any real debates or objections to what the Power Elite believe is their sole Domain to impose on the rest of us citizens. Political Correctness is being manifest in the Amendment that Harry Reid has proposed in regards to Free Political Speech by say the Tea Party Conservatives.
Harry believes that the Koch Brothers should be curtailed from backing political candidates that are in line with the brothers thinking, but does not want to curtail any millionaires who support his agenda. He actually tries to make a case with the American Public through Alinsky tactics and Political Correctness to bring that about.
There are many forms of Political Correctness that have been incorporated into the law of the land by the originating politicians playing to the sympathies and morals of the American People then twisting the result to destroy those honorable beliefs. One thing to remember; The only speech or idea that needs protecting, is the one that may be considered obnoxious, nasty, or in opposition to the powers that be.
The current iteration of Political Correctness gives us in effect double jeopardy on many legal issues. Take Hate Speech or Hate Crimes, Hate Speech is being prosecuted for your obnoxious speech because of the idea that it does some kind of permanent harm to anyone who hears it. It even is used against people for transgressions in the past like Paula Dean. That public outcry was far short of the damage imposed on her that practically destroyed her business.
In fact her business and public persona will never recover since the other businesses she associated with reacted in sheer terror and jumped all over themselves to 'prove' they were not haters in the public eye with their over reactions. Even the media did not report both sides of the issue with a neutral stance. Tell me again how much Political Correctness is a benign device to help the downtrodden and promote equality.
Political Correctness rears it's ugly head in politics most of all. It destroys most opposition to a suspect political agenda by accusing people of being haters if they don't go along part and parcel with the political Agenda's of the people in power. That is nothing less than a subtle Dictatorship that's all the worse because it is brought about by innuendo and stealth bashing of opposing ideas.
This is not a partisan issue, because it taints every aspect of our lives, and does so with an iron fist in a this glove. We as Freedom loving Americans must endeavor to oppose Political Correctness openly and directly at every turn no matter what the personal cost. that is the only way to restore our ethical, Moral, and Honorable basis America was founded on.
Political correctness in it's most benign form is in actuality Censorship of our cherished First Amendment Freedoms of Speech, Press, and Religion. It affects our basic voting rights by allowing for the smearing of our conservative views in favor of the Progressive penchant to turn the Republic into a Socialist controlled, Totalitarian, Despotic,Garrison State that curries favor only for the Elites who set it up.
McFixit
I have a question to ask you all;Do you know why the First Amendment was put in to protect Freedom of Speech? Was it to insure that you could feel free and safe to express your opinions? Was it to insure that you could safely oppose the politicians in power without fear of Retribution from them? Was it so the News Media could report the truth without being censured? Are you beginning to see how Political Correctness is being used to censure and stop all opposition to the Powerful Elites and their Agendas?
Political Correctness is insidious and often mistaken for manners. In fact Political Correctness is simply Fascism pretending to be manners to stifle any real debates or objections to what the Power Elite believe is their sole Domain to impose on the rest of us citizens. Political Correctness is being manifest in the Amendment that Harry Reid has proposed in regards to Free Political Speech by say the Tea Party Conservatives.
Harry believes that the Koch Brothers should be curtailed from backing political candidates that are in line with the brothers thinking, but does not want to curtail any millionaires who support his agenda. He actually tries to make a case with the American Public through Alinsky tactics and Political Correctness to bring that about.
There are many forms of Political Correctness that have been incorporated into the law of the land by the originating politicians playing to the sympathies and morals of the American People then twisting the result to destroy those honorable beliefs. One thing to remember; The only speech or idea that needs protecting, is the one that may be considered obnoxious, nasty, or in opposition to the powers that be.
The current iteration of Political Correctness gives us in effect double jeopardy on many legal issues. Take Hate Speech or Hate Crimes, Hate Speech is being prosecuted for your obnoxious speech because of the idea that it does some kind of permanent harm to anyone who hears it. It even is used against people for transgressions in the past like Paula Dean. That public outcry was far short of the damage imposed on her that practically destroyed her business.
In fact her business and public persona will never recover since the other businesses she associated with reacted in sheer terror and jumped all over themselves to 'prove' they were not haters in the public eye with their over reactions. Even the media did not report both sides of the issue with a neutral stance. Tell me again how much Political Correctness is a benign device to help the downtrodden and promote equality.
Political Correctness rears it's ugly head in politics most of all. It destroys most opposition to a suspect political agenda by accusing people of being haters if they don't go along part and parcel with the political Agenda's of the people in power. That is nothing less than a subtle Dictatorship that's all the worse because it is brought about by innuendo and stealth bashing of opposing ideas.
This is not a partisan issue, because it taints every aspect of our lives, and does so with an iron fist in a this glove. We as Freedom loving Americans must endeavor to oppose Political Correctness openly and directly at every turn no matter what the personal cost. that is the only way to restore our ethical, Moral, and Honorable basis America was founded on.
Political correctness in it's most benign form is in actuality Censorship of our cherished First Amendment Freedoms of Speech, Press, and Religion. It affects our basic voting rights by allowing for the smearing of our conservative views in favor of the Progressive penchant to turn the Republic into a Socialist controlled, Totalitarian, Despotic,Garrison State that curries favor only for the Elites who set it up.
McFixit
Since Politicians are extremely well protected I have a pertinent question to ask them
Here is a model for a letter, Fax, or Email you can send to your Representatives in Washington and in your own States if they support Gun bans or other restrictions or modifications to the Second Amendment:
I have a serious question for you Senator/Representative.
It is an acknowledged fact that the President, Vice President, and other officials of the government have armed security for their personal protection. I fully understand why that is an actuality. What I want to know is: What exactly is your objection against the average Law Abiding American, who is vetted with a mandatory in depth background check, and trained in the laws and restrictions that apply, from having a gun to defend themselves from the Violent Criminal and/or Mentally Unbalanced element?
I would really like to know, because in every instance where open carry was legal and/or Concealed Weapons licenses were made a mandatory issue permit for anyone who passed the strenuous application background check and training systems, have consistently shown a major decrease in the commission of violent crimes.
The exceptions to that rule are the artificial "Gun Free Zones' where the mostly young innocents within those zones are invariably the victims, solely because the mentally ill, the criminally bent, or even the thrill seekers who want the 15 minutes of infamy ply their trade as serial shooters knowing in advance they will meet with no armed resistance and the police will take a known amount of time to respond to the threat.
If you remember the Second Amendment was originally placed in the Constitution so the average citizen would be able to defend themselves, not for Hunting or Sport shooting like the modern definition tries to promote to the public. So, could you answer why you unceasingly ascribe to ever more restrictive laws and regulations in the name of supposed 'Safety of the Public', when the track record shows they are just the opposite?
I leave you with one other question: Would you be willing to disarm your security forces and make yourselves vulnerable to the same threats that the public must face as a direct consequence of your short penchant for trying to confiscate all privately owned guns?
A postcard version would consist of a simple statement.
(politicians name and title here)
I (your name here) would like a direct answer to this question: Would you be willing to dismiss and disarm your security bodyguards and face the same threats we the public must face thanks to your desire to disarm law abiding Americans?
(Your Name and contact information here).
addendum; This especially pertains to politicians like Hillary Clinton, Reid, Udall, Feinstein, Boxer, Bloomberg, and all the others of their Anti-Constitutional stripe. If we start flooding their offices with postcards in high enough numbers that they are shown the error of their ways they might back off. If not, we must vote them out ASAP.
The Tradesman
I have a serious question for you Senator/Representative.
It is an acknowledged fact that the President, Vice President, and other officials of the government have armed security for their personal protection. I fully understand why that is an actuality. What I want to know is: What exactly is your objection against the average Law Abiding American, who is vetted with a mandatory in depth background check, and trained in the laws and restrictions that apply, from having a gun to defend themselves from the Violent Criminal and/or Mentally Unbalanced element?
I would really like to know, because in every instance where open carry was legal and/or Concealed Weapons licenses were made a mandatory issue permit for anyone who passed the strenuous application background check and training systems, have consistently shown a major decrease in the commission of violent crimes.
The exceptions to that rule are the artificial "Gun Free Zones' where the mostly young innocents within those zones are invariably the victims, solely because the mentally ill, the criminally bent, or even the thrill seekers who want the 15 minutes of infamy ply their trade as serial shooters knowing in advance they will meet with no armed resistance and the police will take a known amount of time to respond to the threat.
If you remember the Second Amendment was originally placed in the Constitution so the average citizen would be able to defend themselves, not for Hunting or Sport shooting like the modern definition tries to promote to the public. So, could you answer why you unceasingly ascribe to ever more restrictive laws and regulations in the name of supposed 'Safety of the Public', when the track record shows they are just the opposite?
I leave you with one other question: Would you be willing to disarm your security forces and make yourselves vulnerable to the same threats that the public must face as a direct consequence of your short penchant for trying to confiscate all privately owned guns?
A postcard version would consist of a simple statement.
(politicians name and title here)
I (your name here) would like a direct answer to this question: Would you be willing to dismiss and disarm your security bodyguards and face the same threats we the public must face thanks to your desire to disarm law abiding Americans?
(Your Name and contact information here).
addendum; This especially pertains to politicians like Hillary Clinton, Reid, Udall, Feinstein, Boxer, Bloomberg, and all the others of their Anti-Constitutional stripe. If we start flooding their offices with postcards in high enough numbers that they are shown the error of their ways they might back off. If not, we must vote them out ASAP.
The Tradesman
The Case for a Compact of States
by Gene Daily
12 June 2014
In the 238th year since the Declaration of Independence.
Over the last few weeks I have been considering whether Obama considers himself a King or a President. With the controversial dealings with the Taliban Terrorists, endangering not only our troops but any U.S. Citizen traveling throughout the world. It is not only the fact that he dealt with Islamic Terrorists, but more importantly did so on his own volition without consulting Congress. These are more the actions of a Ruler, rather than a Chief Executive Officer. In the act of considering whether Obama thinks of himself as a Ruler or President, we must then consider how we reacted to our last Ruler King George III.
In the case of Obama, compared with the grievances which caused the the founders to sit in congress and write then sign the Declaration of Independence, then we must act as those great men did, we must act with all due diligence. A single infraction would never be sufficient to even begin to become upset. Any Chief Executive could make a rash ill considered decision. We must take this opportunity to decide if “We The People” have withstood a “Train of Abuses” enough to take action.
In order for us to come to a decision, it is my contention we should take excerpts directly from men considered to be far more intelligent than most of us now living and certainly more than the author of this work. We can easily compare the abuses of King George III with those of the present offender. We can do so by simply citing one by one those of each and then taking a summation of our ability to withstand them.
King George III stood accused of:
He has made Judges dependent upon his will alone. This offence was in light of the opinion of the King, he and he alone should have responsibility to appoint or remove a judge at his pleasure.
Obama of course cannot actually do exactly the same type of action within his current position. He is not yet a declared Dictator. However consider the following:
He has ignored nearly all of the congressional investigation of illegal practices actually discovered so far. There may be others but I fully believe the act of refusing to cooperate, in essence amounts to control of the Judiciary by preventing their ability to act at all. Let us list but a few of the many violations. Starting with Fast and Furious, which to my knowledge has never been brought to a satisfactory conclusion with clear violations of laws and at the minimum clear violations of moral obligations. Actions which resulted in at least one death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.
King George stood accused of:
He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers harass our people, and eat out their substance. King George created customs offices to collect additional taxes and to prevent smuggling. These offices were never approved of by the colonies, so having to pay these additional taxes proved to be the demise of many businesses.
Obama has, to all intent and purposes, replicated the actions of King George, albeit in different more under handed ways. Consider the following if you would:
Take for example the EPA attacks on countless industries and all done by creating regulations which have not been passed by congress, but simply created upon the will of the heads of these agencies, with the support of Obama who appointed them. A fine example is the regulations placed upon the coal industry, designed to close them since the profits are no longer available. In regards to harassing our people, one need to look no further than the incident at Bundy Ranch in Nevada. In the case of the Western States, is it correct for the Obama administration, or any administration for that matter to claim ownership, or right of control over vast sections comprising the majority of many of the western States? This is in clear contravention of the constitution, which clearly limits the amount of land stipulated for the use of the Federal Government. Are not the BLM, EPA and other agencies not clearly abusing their power. Some of these agencies are acting under regulations not enacted by congress, but at the recommendation of the individuals appointed by Obama.
King George III stood accused of:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
Obama on 17 July 2008 in a speech stated his intent to create a force within the United States as powerful as the current Armed Forces. Since taking office there have been multitudes of rumors regarding the purchase of vast quantities of arms and ammunition by so many different Federal agencies. Do “We the People” not have the duty and responsibility to question and receive answers for the intended use of such immense fire-power? Since the wind down of operations in the middle-east scores of local law enforcement agencies across each State have been issued with surplus military equipment up to and including military grade automatic weapons, military style training and the acceptance of integration into training exercises. Some Departments have even been issued 35 ton MWRP vehicles. If this is not the creation of Standing Armies within our borders, without a complete and intelligible explanation, I couldn't imagine what else it would be. What is this administration so completely afraid of? Does each State not still have a National Guard? Is it not the right of every Governor to create a State Guard answerable only to local authorities?
In summation, this is by no means a complete list of abuses the current administration has been accused of. It is not even a list one quarter of the length I could cite and substantiate. It is only meant to spark the imagination of the reader. To prompt the reader to consider what our fore fathers considered worth pledging their lives, their fortunes and perhaps most importantly their sacred honor to achieve.
While I do not wish to appear standing for secession at this time, I do wish the reader to consider the fore fathers built in a means by which the Federal Government could be reined in far short of that fateful step. Many have attempted to push for an Article V convention of the States in the past. Is it not at least time to call for a compact of the States? A simple agreement of the several Sovereign States to send representatives to and agreed place of assembly to reach a consensus upon the direction which needs to be taken to right the ship of the Federal Government?
There will be those among the readers who will, like Lincoln and many who followed, ascribe to the belief the Federal Government created the States. I will not take time or space here to refute such an obviously false premise. King George III, through his representatives, signed peace accords with each of the thirteen separate nation which existed upon the North American Continent at the close of the revolutionary war. They came together to create agents to serve their needs following that conflict. The remainder of the decisions regarding that construct has been written into the constitution.
Prior to 1865 the phrase used to describe our Republic was, The Untied States Are” following that change the phrase was revised to be stated, “The United States Is”. The time for considering another change is upon us. Do not shirk to grave responsibilities placed upon us by virtue of the great freedoms placed in our hands by our framers to guard. Many of us in our lifetimes have taken an oath to guard the republic from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The time for a Compact of States is now. Some oaths never end.
12 June 2014
In the 238th year since the Declaration of Independence.
Over the last few weeks I have been considering whether Obama considers himself a King or a President. With the controversial dealings with the Taliban Terrorists, endangering not only our troops but any U.S. Citizen traveling throughout the world. It is not only the fact that he dealt with Islamic Terrorists, but more importantly did so on his own volition without consulting Congress. These are more the actions of a Ruler, rather than a Chief Executive Officer. In the act of considering whether Obama thinks of himself as a Ruler or President, we must then consider how we reacted to our last Ruler King George III.
In the case of Obama, compared with the grievances which caused the the founders to sit in congress and write then sign the Declaration of Independence, then we must act as those great men did, we must act with all due diligence. A single infraction would never be sufficient to even begin to become upset. Any Chief Executive could make a rash ill considered decision. We must take this opportunity to decide if “We The People” have withstood a “Train of Abuses” enough to take action.
In order for us to come to a decision, it is my contention we should take excerpts directly from men considered to be far more intelligent than most of us now living and certainly more than the author of this work. We can easily compare the abuses of King George III with those of the present offender. We can do so by simply citing one by one those of each and then taking a summation of our ability to withstand them.
King George III stood accused of:
He has made Judges dependent upon his will alone. This offence was in light of the opinion of the King, he and he alone should have responsibility to appoint or remove a judge at his pleasure.
Obama of course cannot actually do exactly the same type of action within his current position. He is not yet a declared Dictator. However consider the following:
He has ignored nearly all of the congressional investigation of illegal practices actually discovered so far. There may be others but I fully believe the act of refusing to cooperate, in essence amounts to control of the Judiciary by preventing their ability to act at all. Let us list but a few of the many violations. Starting with Fast and Furious, which to my knowledge has never been brought to a satisfactory conclusion with clear violations of laws and at the minimum clear violations of moral obligations. Actions which resulted in at least one death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.
King George stood accused of:
He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers harass our people, and eat out their substance. King George created customs offices to collect additional taxes and to prevent smuggling. These offices were never approved of by the colonies, so having to pay these additional taxes proved to be the demise of many businesses.
Obama has, to all intent and purposes, replicated the actions of King George, albeit in different more under handed ways. Consider the following if you would:
Take for example the EPA attacks on countless industries and all done by creating regulations which have not been passed by congress, but simply created upon the will of the heads of these agencies, with the support of Obama who appointed them. A fine example is the regulations placed upon the coal industry, designed to close them since the profits are no longer available. In regards to harassing our people, one need to look no further than the incident at Bundy Ranch in Nevada. In the case of the Western States, is it correct for the Obama administration, or any administration for that matter to claim ownership, or right of control over vast sections comprising the majority of many of the western States? This is in clear contravention of the constitution, which clearly limits the amount of land stipulated for the use of the Federal Government. Are not the BLM, EPA and other agencies not clearly abusing their power. Some of these agencies are acting under regulations not enacted by congress, but at the recommendation of the individuals appointed by Obama.
King George III stood accused of:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
Obama on 17 July 2008 in a speech stated his intent to create a force within the United States as powerful as the current Armed Forces. Since taking office there have been multitudes of rumors regarding the purchase of vast quantities of arms and ammunition by so many different Federal agencies. Do “We the People” not have the duty and responsibility to question and receive answers for the intended use of such immense fire-power? Since the wind down of operations in the middle-east scores of local law enforcement agencies across each State have been issued with surplus military equipment up to and including military grade automatic weapons, military style training and the acceptance of integration into training exercises. Some Departments have even been issued 35 ton MWRP vehicles. If this is not the creation of Standing Armies within our borders, without a complete and intelligible explanation, I couldn't imagine what else it would be. What is this administration so completely afraid of? Does each State not still have a National Guard? Is it not the right of every Governor to create a State Guard answerable only to local authorities?
In summation, this is by no means a complete list of abuses the current administration has been accused of. It is not even a list one quarter of the length I could cite and substantiate. It is only meant to spark the imagination of the reader. To prompt the reader to consider what our fore fathers considered worth pledging their lives, their fortunes and perhaps most importantly their sacred honor to achieve.
While I do not wish to appear standing for secession at this time, I do wish the reader to consider the fore fathers built in a means by which the Federal Government could be reined in far short of that fateful step. Many have attempted to push for an Article V convention of the States in the past. Is it not at least time to call for a compact of the States? A simple agreement of the several Sovereign States to send representatives to and agreed place of assembly to reach a consensus upon the direction which needs to be taken to right the ship of the Federal Government?
There will be those among the readers who will, like Lincoln and many who followed, ascribe to the belief the Federal Government created the States. I will not take time or space here to refute such an obviously false premise. King George III, through his representatives, signed peace accords with each of the thirteen separate nation which existed upon the North American Continent at the close of the revolutionary war. They came together to create agents to serve their needs following that conflict. The remainder of the decisions regarding that construct has been written into the constitution.
Prior to 1865 the phrase used to describe our Republic was, The Untied States Are” following that change the phrase was revised to be stated, “The United States Is”. The time for considering another change is upon us. Do not shirk to grave responsibilities placed upon us by virtue of the great freedoms placed in our hands by our framers to guard. Many of us in our lifetimes have taken an oath to guard the republic from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The time for a Compact of States is now. Some oaths never end.
Problems, Venting my Spleen
Our fight to stop and block the Progressive Socialists is fast becoming an exercise in futility. We are not just fighting the Socialist/NWO faction, we are fighting 3/4 of the political system. It amazes me that the Stupid Line Republican Establishment Leadership wants to fight us instead of the Democrats. Seems they are more concerned with maintaining their stranglehold of power in the Republican Party over and above what they were elected to do in the first place. Recently they have adopted Blitzkreig tactics in the primary race to trash the tea party opponent. If the Tea Party does not change it's tactics it will shortly become it's own worst enemy.
Right now the Tea Party is up against one of the most harsh and vicious opponents it ever will face. That opponent is Karl Rove. Rove has made it his express personal trademark of utterly destroying anyone or anything that dares to disagree with him. He has been that way since high school if his biographers can be believed. I believe it is Karl who has poisoned the Republican Establishment leaders against the Tea Party because they dared to call him out on some of his less than stellar political moves that actually caused the GOP to lose.
I am beginning to see the beginning of the end of the Free American Republic because of the unnecessary internecine infighting between the actual conservatives and the faction lorded over by Karl Rove with the purpose of keeping and growing their own political power regardless of the cost to the Republic. I have always been against the formation of a third party because the American Electorate has been conditioned to only see the viability of the two major parties, and the splitting of the votes that will allow the progressives free reign.
The Conservative faction is under fire from the establishment GOP ( probably at Rove's behest) and has published five points why the GOP should divorce itself from the conservative Tea Party.
These Rove instigated points are;
1. A Washington Posts article about alleged contributions to PAC's being spent wrong.
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tea-party-pacs-reap-money-for-midterms-but-spend-little-on-candidates/2014/04/26/0e52919a-cbd6-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html )
2. Tea Party Candidates like Matt Daniel and Chris Bevin have been getting clobbered in the primary contests.
3. Immigration becomes an issue because the Latino vote becomes very important this year and if the Republicans don't come out for immigration reform, it will happen anyway and they will have alienated millions of voters.
4. "Republican economics is Tea Party economics. But the frame of rigidly siding with the rich is a loser for the party, given the way the American people’s views are evolving, which leads us to the real reason the Tea Party is no longer necessary for the GOP…"
5. The GOP brand is more popular with the cross section of Americans than the Tea Party Brand is.
All of the above critical rhetorical comments are more likely warmed over Progressive complaints that have been co-opted by Rove to destroy the Tea Party he hates so much for having the audacity to say he was wrong. The Tea Party desperately needs to refute these and all of Rove's Alinsky tactics to destroy us just for the sake of his overblown EGO.
Right now the Tea Party is up against one of the most harsh and vicious opponents it ever will face. That opponent is Karl Rove. Rove has made it his express personal trademark of utterly destroying anyone or anything that dares to disagree with him. He has been that way since high school if his biographers can be believed. I believe it is Karl who has poisoned the Republican Establishment leaders against the Tea Party because they dared to call him out on some of his less than stellar political moves that actually caused the GOP to lose.
I am beginning to see the beginning of the end of the Free American Republic because of the unnecessary internecine infighting between the actual conservatives and the faction lorded over by Karl Rove with the purpose of keeping and growing their own political power regardless of the cost to the Republic. I have always been against the formation of a third party because the American Electorate has been conditioned to only see the viability of the two major parties, and the splitting of the votes that will allow the progressives free reign.
The Conservative faction is under fire from the establishment GOP ( probably at Rove's behest) and has published five points why the GOP should divorce itself from the conservative Tea Party.
These Rove instigated points are;
1. A Washington Posts article about alleged contributions to PAC's being spent wrong.
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tea-party-pacs-reap-money-for-midterms-but-spend-little-on-candidates/2014/04/26/0e52919a-cbd6-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html )
2. Tea Party Candidates like Matt Daniel and Chris Bevin have been getting clobbered in the primary contests.
3. Immigration becomes an issue because the Latino vote becomes very important this year and if the Republicans don't come out for immigration reform, it will happen anyway and they will have alienated millions of voters.
4. "Republican economics is Tea Party economics. But the frame of rigidly siding with the rich is a loser for the party, given the way the American people’s views are evolving, which leads us to the real reason the Tea Party is no longer necessary for the GOP…"
5. The GOP brand is more popular with the cross section of Americans than the Tea Party Brand is.
All of the above critical rhetorical comments are more likely warmed over Progressive complaints that have been co-opted by Rove to destroy the Tea Party he hates so much for having the audacity to say he was wrong. The Tea Party desperately needs to refute these and all of Rove's Alinsky tactics to destroy us just for the sake of his overblown EGO.
ARTICLE V: THE WAY TO END WASHINGTON’S SPENDING
by Tea Party
[Ed. Note: Herman Cain weighs in on the need for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution. Something has to change to end the insanity of borrowing and spending that has gone beyond control of the politicians in charge. Help get Texas on board. Republished from CanadaFreePress.com, May 20, 2014, by Herman Cain, "The Article V Initiative: The way for the states to end Washington's spending."
If you’re frustrated by the refusal of Congress to stop its fiscal insanity – and how could you not be? – it’s time to start realizing that the Constitution gives states and the people more power over Congress than most realize. And right now there is an effort called the Article V Initiative that would wield and deploy that power.
Most people don’t know, because they have never been taught, that Article V of the Constitution empowers the people through their state legislatures to propose amendments. Specifically, Article V proscribes a process in which two-thirds of state legislatures (34 total) can vote to direct Congress to call a meeting of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments.
This is not a constitutional convention, which would be for the purpose of writing an entirely new Constitution. It is solely for the purpose of voting to enact amendments. Once such a meeting of the states is called (and Congress cannot refuse if two-thirds of the states call for it), then any amendment would require a vote of three-fourths (38 total) of state legislatures for ratification.
I spoke this past weekend to the people leading the Article V initiative. They are determined to work with state legislatures to bring on board the 34 states that would call for this meeting of the states.
One of the most positive things about this opportunity is that every state gets an equal vote. So if red states like Wyoming and Utah sign on, the value of their votes doesn’t get obliterated by gigantic blue states like California or New York. Then again, if gigantic blue states are wise they will get on board. If Congress continues to pile up an ever-more crushing debt burden, those bigger states are going to shoulder a bigger share of the burden than the smaller states.
If 34 states can be brought on board to call for this gathering, then 38 states can pass any amendment to the Constitution, and there will be nothing Congress or the president can do about it.
And that brings us to the concept of the Balanced Budget Amendment. Since many of the states have balanced budget amendments in their own constitutions, it only makes sense to believe they would see merit to having one in the U.S. Constitution. It’s fine for states to balance their own budgets, but if the federal government mismanages itself into a fiscal collapse, it will be the states who are left to pick up the pieces.
Now you might ask: Can’t we solve this problem just by electing better people. Well, that would certainly help. But a major problem with politicians, even good ones, is that they quickly learn it benefits them to bestow favors on the electorate with other people’s money. The Constitution limits the power of the federal government precisely because the nature of politics incentivizes government to grow. It also needs to limit the power of politicians to borrow and spend because the same kinds of incentives exist for them to do so irresponsibly. Even good people have to live within the limits of the powers enumerated by the Constitution, and that’s as it should be.
By the way, don’t think this is impossible. Twenty-four states have already passed this resolution, including six this year – Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, Louisiana and Georgia. Mississippi passed it in 1975 and there is no expiration date. So we only need 10 more! And in three more states – Wisconsin, Arizona and South Carolina – the measure has passed the state House and is pending in the Senate.
Here is where you can learn more about this effort. We’re going to keep on this and support the effort in any way we can. This nation was founded with the idea that the states could serve as a check on the federal government. These days the people don’t seem to realize that, and the powers-that-be in Washington certainly have little interest in explaining it to them.
But that power is real, and today it needs to be wielded more urgently than ever. The working class needs to make this happen, because the political class would never do it. But the political class also can’t stop it. The Constitution is on our side.
[Ed. Note: Republished from CanadaFreePress.com. CLICK HERE ]
Tea Party | May 27, 2014
[Ed. Note: Herman Cain weighs in on the need for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution. Something has to change to end the insanity of borrowing and spending that has gone beyond control of the politicians in charge. Help get Texas on board. Republished from CanadaFreePress.com, May 20, 2014, by Herman Cain, "The Article V Initiative: The way for the states to end Washington's spending."
If you’re frustrated by the refusal of Congress to stop its fiscal insanity – and how could you not be? – it’s time to start realizing that the Constitution gives states and the people more power over Congress than most realize. And right now there is an effort called the Article V Initiative that would wield and deploy that power.
Most people don’t know, because they have never been taught, that Article V of the Constitution empowers the people through their state legislatures to propose amendments. Specifically, Article V proscribes a process in which two-thirds of state legislatures (34 total) can vote to direct Congress to call a meeting of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments.
This is not a constitutional convention, which would be for the purpose of writing an entirely new Constitution. It is solely for the purpose of voting to enact amendments. Once such a meeting of the states is called (and Congress cannot refuse if two-thirds of the states call for it), then any amendment would require a vote of three-fourths (38 total) of state legislatures for ratification.
I spoke this past weekend to the people leading the Article V initiative. They are determined to work with state legislatures to bring on board the 34 states that would call for this meeting of the states.
One of the most positive things about this opportunity is that every state gets an equal vote. So if red states like Wyoming and Utah sign on, the value of their votes doesn’t get obliterated by gigantic blue states like California or New York. Then again, if gigantic blue states are wise they will get on board. If Congress continues to pile up an ever-more crushing debt burden, those bigger states are going to shoulder a bigger share of the burden than the smaller states.
If 34 states can be brought on board to call for this gathering, then 38 states can pass any amendment to the Constitution, and there will be nothing Congress or the president can do about it.
And that brings us to the concept of the Balanced Budget Amendment. Since many of the states have balanced budget amendments in their own constitutions, it only makes sense to believe they would see merit to having one in the U.S. Constitution. It’s fine for states to balance their own budgets, but if the federal government mismanages itself into a fiscal collapse, it will be the states who are left to pick up the pieces.
Now you might ask: Can’t we solve this problem just by electing better people. Well, that would certainly help. But a major problem with politicians, even good ones, is that they quickly learn it benefits them to bestow favors on the electorate with other people’s money. The Constitution limits the power of the federal government precisely because the nature of politics incentivizes government to grow. It also needs to limit the power of politicians to borrow and spend because the same kinds of incentives exist for them to do so irresponsibly. Even good people have to live within the limits of the powers enumerated by the Constitution, and that’s as it should be.
By the way, don’t think this is impossible. Twenty-four states have already passed this resolution, including six this year – Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, Louisiana and Georgia. Mississippi passed it in 1975 and there is no expiration date. So we only need 10 more! And in three more states – Wisconsin, Arizona and South Carolina – the measure has passed the state House and is pending in the Senate.
Here is where you can learn more about this effort. We’re going to keep on this and support the effort in any way we can. This nation was founded with the idea that the states could serve as a check on the federal government. These days the people don’t seem to realize that, and the powers-that-be in Washington certainly have little interest in explaining it to them.
But that power is real, and today it needs to be wielded more urgently than ever. The working class needs to make this happen, because the political class would never do it. But the political class also can’t stop it. The Constitution is on our side.
[Ed. Note: Republished from CanadaFreePress.com. CLICK HERE ]
Tea Party | May 27, 2014
Let's Take This Article By The Uber Left National Memo Apart
Something from that uber left leaning rag, the National Memo:
I will attempt to take apart the Propaganda spin in this piece of Progressive trash and outright lies Line by Line in the article titles U,S, Doctors Decry 'Political Blackmail' By Gun Lobby. Writer's comments * or (*).
I will attempt to take apart the Propaganda spin in this piece of Progressive trash and outright lies Line by Line in the article titles U,S, Doctors Decry 'Political Blackmail' By Gun Lobby. Writer's comments * or (*).
*Well the first thing that is a blatant bit of spin is the photo that projects what is called an NRA Convention Shirt, and how it is used in the context of this article, it is taken out of it's true context of a play on words ridiculing the mistaken ideology of Anti-Gun advocates and changed into what the left would have you believe is an institutional lack of concern and frivolity over the deaths where guns were used.
U.S. Doctors Decry ‘Political Blackmail’ By Gun Lobby
Washington (AFP) – A leading US medical journal hit out at the powerful American gun lobby for opposing the nomination for the post of top doctor, calling it a new form of “political blackmail.”
( * The cited reporting media is a known Pro Gun Restriction as part of their official policy, so of course they would slant the report towards the Socialist point of view as the NRA committing 'Political Blackmail'. )
At issue is the nomination to the post of surgeon general of a Harvard medical school physician named Vivek Murthy, whose parents were born in India Murthy was born in England, and grew up with their predisposition against having an armed public that goes back to Henry the 8th.
(*Considering the background and public stances of Vivek Murthy I can fully see where the NRA has an issue with him becoming the Surgeon General and being able to set regulations for the medical profession that are in line with his and the Administration's stated purposes of severely regulating private gun ownership with a view to total confiscation. India has Draconian gun ownership laws going back to colonial days http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/) and those in England where he grew up ( http://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Articles/HistGunCtlEngland.htm.
Murthy “has lived the American dream,” said the editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting his role in expanding HIV education, broadening access to healthcare and fighting childhood obesity.
(* Murthy has lived the Progressive American dream but has not accepted the American ideology of public ownership of firearms like the Second Amendment protects..)
His nomination awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate, but that vote may be postponed or his candidacy withdrawn, amid reports that as many as 10 senate Democrats would vote against him, enough to keep him out of the post.
(* Even some Democrats still believe in the Constitution, Amazing huh?)
The National Rifle Association has sent letters to lawmakers and to members over the past two months, urging them to oppose Murthy based on his views on guns.
(* Murthy is a Gun ban activist, and here is what the NRAS-ILA has to say about him; http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/2/anti-gun-obama-nominee-vivek-murthy-clears-first-hurdle-in-confirmation-for-us-surgeon-general.aspx)
“Dr. Murthy’s record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to America’s 100 million firearm owners,” said one NRA letter to lawmakers, sent to AFP by the NRA press office.
(* Murthy's views are in opposition to a CDC study on gun violence commissioned by Obama himself and then suppressed because it showed http://www.caintv.com/obama-orders-cdc-gun-violence the study basically backed every pro-gun rights argument made.)
A separate email alert to NRA members described Murthy as someone who agrees with President Barack Obama’s “radical anti-gun agenda” and who has “advocated on many occasions for the banning of lawfully owned firearms.”
(* I could not have said this better.)
“It’s clear that Dr. Murthy would be a prescription for disaster for America’s law-abiding gun owners,” the email said, urging NRA members to contact their senators to express their opposition.
(* I second that idea.)
The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said Murthy has stood for “reasonable and mainstream forms of gun regulation, including an assault weapons ban, a limit on ammunition sales, and required safety training.”
(* He did so much more in addition to that, see; http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/14/another-reason-to-be-concerned-about-obamas-surgeon-general-nominee/ )
These views are “unsurprising” given the more than 30,000 firearm deaths in the United States each year, the editorial said.
(* Consider this, there are currently about 300 MILLION guns owned privately in the US and the Number is increasing by about 10,000 a year. When you look at that it shows the firearm death rate is .0001% of the guns privately owned. Even the Statistics from the FBI shows there are more deaths attributed to hammers than guns { http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/01/fbi-more-deaths-from-hammers-and-clubs-than-assault-rifles/ } you can even take a look at all the government statistics on cause of death in the US { https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf }.)
It also pointed out that Murthy has said that if confirmed, his principal focus would be on preventing obesity in America.
(* Actually I don't have enough ability in reading someone elses mind to confirm or deny that speculation, but based on his past habits, I would Guess that he would turn first to regulations that would assist gun-grabbers agendas.)
“This is the first time that the NRA has flexed its political muscle over the appointment of a surgeon general,” the editors' wrote.
“By obstructing the president’s nomination of Vivek Murthy as surgeon general, the NRA is taking its single-issue political blackmail to a new level.”
(* Good bit of spin here, think about it, isn't proposing a known anti-gun advocate an even more intense form of political blackmail perpetrated on the American Public through it's institutions of Government?)
The authors concluded by calling on U.S. senators to confront the NRA and vote according to their conscience.
(* I'm calling on all freedom loving Americans to call on their Senators and confront and deny the appointment of Vivek Murthy for Surgeon general because he is too biased and would not be able to render a non-political decision that went against the Administration's stated goals even if he for some reason was against a portion of them.)
“Dr. Murthy is an accomplished physician, policymaker, leader and entrepreneur. He deserves the president’s continued backing and should be confirmed.”
(* I feel that Dr. Murthy while being a competent physician is not ideologically suited to comport himself in an un-biased manner when enacting regulations that will have potentially negative Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment consequences to the American people.)
Caveat Emptor on this proposed Surgeon General's nomination.
The Tradesman
U.S. Doctors Decry ‘Political Blackmail’ By Gun Lobby
Washington (AFP) – A leading US medical journal hit out at the powerful American gun lobby for opposing the nomination for the post of top doctor, calling it a new form of “political blackmail.”
( * The cited reporting media is a known Pro Gun Restriction as part of their official policy, so of course they would slant the report towards the Socialist point of view as the NRA committing 'Political Blackmail'. )
At issue is the nomination to the post of surgeon general of a Harvard medical school physician named Vivek Murthy, whose parents were born in India Murthy was born in England, and grew up with their predisposition against having an armed public that goes back to Henry the 8th.
(*Considering the background and public stances of Vivek Murthy I can fully see where the NRA has an issue with him becoming the Surgeon General and being able to set regulations for the medical profession that are in line with his and the Administration's stated purposes of severely regulating private gun ownership with a view to total confiscation. India has Draconian gun ownership laws going back to colonial days http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/) and those in England where he grew up ( http://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Articles/HistGunCtlEngland.htm.
Murthy “has lived the American dream,” said the editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting his role in expanding HIV education, broadening access to healthcare and fighting childhood obesity.
(* Murthy has lived the Progressive American dream but has not accepted the American ideology of public ownership of firearms like the Second Amendment protects..)
His nomination awaits a vote in the U.S. Senate, but that vote may be postponed or his candidacy withdrawn, amid reports that as many as 10 senate Democrats would vote against him, enough to keep him out of the post.
(* Even some Democrats still believe in the Constitution, Amazing huh?)
The National Rifle Association has sent letters to lawmakers and to members over the past two months, urging them to oppose Murthy based on his views on guns.
(* Murthy is a Gun ban activist, and here is what the NRAS-ILA has to say about him; http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/2/anti-gun-obama-nominee-vivek-murthy-clears-first-hurdle-in-confirmation-for-us-surgeon-general.aspx)
“Dr. Murthy’s record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to America’s 100 million firearm owners,” said one NRA letter to lawmakers, sent to AFP by the NRA press office.
(* Murthy's views are in opposition to a CDC study on gun violence commissioned by Obama himself and then suppressed because it showed http://www.caintv.com/obama-orders-cdc-gun-violence the study basically backed every pro-gun rights argument made.)
A separate email alert to NRA members described Murthy as someone who agrees with President Barack Obama’s “radical anti-gun agenda” and who has “advocated on many occasions for the banning of lawfully owned firearms.”
(* I could not have said this better.)
“It’s clear that Dr. Murthy would be a prescription for disaster for America’s law-abiding gun owners,” the email said, urging NRA members to contact their senators to express their opposition.
(* I second that idea.)
The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said Murthy has stood for “reasonable and mainstream forms of gun regulation, including an assault weapons ban, a limit on ammunition sales, and required safety training.”
(* He did so much more in addition to that, see; http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/14/another-reason-to-be-concerned-about-obamas-surgeon-general-nominee/ )
These views are “unsurprising” given the more than 30,000 firearm deaths in the United States each year, the editorial said.
(* Consider this, there are currently about 300 MILLION guns owned privately in the US and the Number is increasing by about 10,000 a year. When you look at that it shows the firearm death rate is .0001% of the guns privately owned. Even the Statistics from the FBI shows there are more deaths attributed to hammers than guns { http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/01/fbi-more-deaths-from-hammers-and-clubs-than-assault-rifles/ } you can even take a look at all the government statistics on cause of death in the US { https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf }.)
It also pointed out that Murthy has said that if confirmed, his principal focus would be on preventing obesity in America.
(* Actually I don't have enough ability in reading someone elses mind to confirm or deny that speculation, but based on his past habits, I would Guess that he would turn first to regulations that would assist gun-grabbers agendas.)
“This is the first time that the NRA has flexed its political muscle over the appointment of a surgeon general,” the editors' wrote.
“By obstructing the president’s nomination of Vivek Murthy as surgeon general, the NRA is taking its single-issue political blackmail to a new level.”
(* Good bit of spin here, think about it, isn't proposing a known anti-gun advocate an even more intense form of political blackmail perpetrated on the American Public through it's institutions of Government?)
The authors concluded by calling on U.S. senators to confront the NRA and vote according to their conscience.
(* I'm calling on all freedom loving Americans to call on their Senators and confront and deny the appointment of Vivek Murthy for Surgeon general because he is too biased and would not be able to render a non-political decision that went against the Administration's stated goals even if he for some reason was against a portion of them.)
“Dr. Murthy is an accomplished physician, policymaker, leader and entrepreneur. He deserves the president’s continued backing and should be confirmed.”
(* I feel that Dr. Murthy while being a competent physician is not ideologically suited to comport himself in an un-biased manner when enacting regulations that will have potentially negative Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment consequences to the American people.)
Caveat Emptor on this proposed Surgeon General's nomination.
The Tradesman
How to take back the Republic and stop the progressive onslaught to destroy America
The only way to preserve the Republic and to start down the road to return us to a Constitutional Republic, is to first do our level best to remove all the incumbent Progressive Democrats who are running in the November election from office.
If we don't do that, we will lose the Republic and the progressives will make America over into a total Socialist country, complete with the expected failure rate for socialist countries, and the attendant loss of personal liberty and freedom. So, unless you are hell bent on becoming a socialist nation, regardless of it's final aspect as Communism or Fascism, we must know and act on several things this election.
1. We can not afford to stay home and not vote, we must vote against every progressive running at every level of government, but especially against those now in power in Congress. They must go.
2. In no way can we think we can get Congress to change it's ways by "Making a statement by voting for a distraction like Ross Perot was." He talked a good fight, but both times his distraction allowed the Progressives under Clinton to further their goals. Besides the progressives are counting on enough people doing this to insure their win in November.
3. We can't trust the Republican party to do the right thing either, but we must place them TEMPORARILY back in power until we can get rid of the RINOs there too.
4. We must not split the vote. If we split the vote between the third and independent parties. By doing that, only the progressives will win, and we will lose America. Yes, it is that critical at this juncture.
5. Since it is too late to affect the primary elections and force our candidates on the ballots for the November elections, we must agree to band together and vet candidates we believe in for the 2016 elections, then do the leg work of getting proper petitions signed, notarized, and certified for our picks so we can force them on the Primary Ballots of BOTH parties, even against the wishes of the establishment party leaderships. Then DOMINATE the 2016 primary elections nationwide.
6. We must petition the Tea Party Leaders to coordinate these efforts among the Tea Party members, as well as among the different established Tea Party groups, to make it a unified effort instead of the piecemeal efforts now going on.
7. We must be adamant with the Tea Party leaders about this plan, and insure that they start it up immediately after the November ballots are counted, and push, promote and coordinate the plan through to the 2016 and beyond elections.
8. Once we have enough of our hand picked candidates elected and re-elected, we can start attempting to get them to create a Third Major Political Party, based on our/their political philosophy, which will have the numbers and public recognition to upstage two party system and beat it at it's own power games, to insure a viable three party system.
We must take proper action if we want to win against the coming Progressive darkness.
The Tradesman
If we don't do that, we will lose the Republic and the progressives will make America over into a total Socialist country, complete with the expected failure rate for socialist countries, and the attendant loss of personal liberty and freedom. So, unless you are hell bent on becoming a socialist nation, regardless of it's final aspect as Communism or Fascism, we must know and act on several things this election.
1. We can not afford to stay home and not vote, we must vote against every progressive running at every level of government, but especially against those now in power in Congress. They must go.
2. In no way can we think we can get Congress to change it's ways by "Making a statement by voting for a distraction like Ross Perot was." He talked a good fight, but both times his distraction allowed the Progressives under Clinton to further their goals. Besides the progressives are counting on enough people doing this to insure their win in November.
3. We can't trust the Republican party to do the right thing either, but we must place them TEMPORARILY back in power until we can get rid of the RINOs there too.
4. We must not split the vote. If we split the vote between the third and independent parties. By doing that, only the progressives will win, and we will lose America. Yes, it is that critical at this juncture.
5. Since it is too late to affect the primary elections and force our candidates on the ballots for the November elections, we must agree to band together and vet candidates we believe in for the 2016 elections, then do the leg work of getting proper petitions signed, notarized, and certified for our picks so we can force them on the Primary Ballots of BOTH parties, even against the wishes of the establishment party leaderships. Then DOMINATE the 2016 primary elections nationwide.
6. We must petition the Tea Party Leaders to coordinate these efforts among the Tea Party members, as well as among the different established Tea Party groups, to make it a unified effort instead of the piecemeal efforts now going on.
7. We must be adamant with the Tea Party leaders about this plan, and insure that they start it up immediately after the November ballots are counted, and push, promote and coordinate the plan through to the 2016 and beyond elections.
8. Once we have enough of our hand picked candidates elected and re-elected, we can start attempting to get them to create a Third Major Political Party, based on our/their political philosophy, which will have the numbers and public recognition to upstage two party system and beat it at it's own power games, to insure a viable three party system.
We must take proper action if we want to win against the coming Progressive darkness.
The Tradesman
Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today?
We the People are the opening words of the preamble to the Constitution. Many patriots glory in that name, “We the People” holding it aloft as a banner against the encroachments of an ever expanding central government. In the minds of many it is connected somehow to Lincoln’s famous description of America’s government, “Of the People, by the people and for the people.”
Both of these were revolutionary terms when first spoken.
The people of the founding generation did not think of themselves as “Americans,” instead they saw themselves as citizens of their respective States. The thirteen colonies, with the singular exception of North and South Carolina, were each founded as separate entities. Each had its own history and relationship with the crown. They banded together for the Revolution during which they established the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. This established a confederation composed of thirteen independent States.
When the secretly drafted Constitution was finally revealed to the public many of the leading lights of the Revolution were enraged by what they saw as a counter-revolution seeking to supplant the legally constituted Confederation of States in favor of a consolidated central government. Some of them say the truth was revealed in the first three words, “We the People.”
Every school child can recite the most famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” You probably said those words in your head before you read them once you saw his name. He is synonymous with America’s defiance to tyranny. While these famous words ring in the heads of all, few know his opinion on the Constitution.
At the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry said,
And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
Ever since the Civil War fatally warped the original federal structure and We the People became a reality the central government of the United States has assumed more and more power until today totalitarianism appears to be within its grasp. I am not referring to the crude overt totalitarianism of a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia; instead I am referring to a soft totalitarianism, a kind of nanny state smothering of individual freedom, personal liberty and economic opportunity. After the complete subjugation of the States to the central government by the Lincoln administration combined with the increased mobility of the modern era, we the people actually became the way most people think of themselves.
In America today we have a president who in a 2001 interview expressed his inner most thoughts about the Constitution:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
That is as clear a statement of the way our Progressive leaders view America’s founding document, a charter of negative liberties. A charter that they believe needs to be expanded with a second bill of rights first proposed by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union Address:
1.) A realistic tax law – which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.
2.) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts – which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.
3.) A cost of food law – which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.
4.) Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
5.) A national service law – which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.
According to Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, President Obama not only believes in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, he seeks to implement them:
As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects “equality of result,” but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both fair opportunity and decent security for all.
In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights.
We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power. The question before us today is, “Would we the people ratify the Constitution today?”
Even Conservatives believe in a safety net. Everyone contributes to and hopes to receive from Social Security. No one wants people dying in the streets because they can’t get medical care so Medicaid is available to the uninsured. Of course Medicare is considered a right for anyone over 65. Unemployment is an accepted part of the safety net as are food stamps. If you add up what is already accepted and expected then throw Obamacare into the mix and you see we have become a society addicted to entitlements – all of which would fail the test of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to do any of these entitlements is not delegated anywhere in the document as it is written, only as it is interpreted.
So would we the people ratify the Constitution as it is written today? I think not. A living document has turned the Constitution into a dead letter and the entitlements we have all accepted have turned the descendants of the Founders, Framers, and Pioneers into supplicants standing before the federal throne waiting for a check.
Only a re-birth of self-reliance, a renaissance of historical perspective and renewed political activity have a chance to bring about a rebirth of liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
https://patriotpost.us/commentary/25031
Both of these were revolutionary terms when first spoken.
The people of the founding generation did not think of themselves as “Americans,” instead they saw themselves as citizens of their respective States. The thirteen colonies, with the singular exception of North and South Carolina, were each founded as separate entities. Each had its own history and relationship with the crown. They banded together for the Revolution during which they established the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. This established a confederation composed of thirteen independent States.
When the secretly drafted Constitution was finally revealed to the public many of the leading lights of the Revolution were enraged by what they saw as a counter-revolution seeking to supplant the legally constituted Confederation of States in favor of a consolidated central government. Some of them say the truth was revealed in the first three words, “We the People.”
Every school child can recite the most famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” You probably said those words in your head before you read them once you saw his name. He is synonymous with America’s defiance to tyranny. While these famous words ring in the heads of all, few know his opinion on the Constitution.
At the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry said,
And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
Ever since the Civil War fatally warped the original federal structure and We the People became a reality the central government of the United States has assumed more and more power until today totalitarianism appears to be within its grasp. I am not referring to the crude overt totalitarianism of a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia; instead I am referring to a soft totalitarianism, a kind of nanny state smothering of individual freedom, personal liberty and economic opportunity. After the complete subjugation of the States to the central government by the Lincoln administration combined with the increased mobility of the modern era, we the people actually became the way most people think of themselves.
In America today we have a president who in a 2001 interview expressed his inner most thoughts about the Constitution:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
That is as clear a statement of the way our Progressive leaders view America’s founding document, a charter of negative liberties. A charter that they believe needs to be expanded with a second bill of rights first proposed by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union Address:
1.) A realistic tax law – which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.
2.) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts – which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.
3.) A cost of food law – which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.
4.) Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
5.) A national service law – which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.
According to Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, President Obama not only believes in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, he seeks to implement them:
As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects “equality of result,” but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both fair opportunity and decent security for all.
In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights.
We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power. The question before us today is, “Would we the people ratify the Constitution today?”
Even Conservatives believe in a safety net. Everyone contributes to and hopes to receive from Social Security. No one wants people dying in the streets because they can’t get medical care so Medicaid is available to the uninsured. Of course Medicare is considered a right for anyone over 65. Unemployment is an accepted part of the safety net as are food stamps. If you add up what is already accepted and expected then throw Obamacare into the mix and you see we have become a society addicted to entitlements – all of which would fail the test of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to do any of these entitlements is not delegated anywhere in the document as it is written, only as it is interpreted.
So would we the people ratify the Constitution as it is written today? I think not. A living document has turned the Constitution into a dead letter and the entitlements we have all accepted have turned the descendants of the Founders, Framers, and Pioneers into supplicants standing before the federal throne waiting for a check.
Only a re-birth of self-reliance, a renaissance of historical perspective and renewed political activity have a chance to bring about a rebirth of liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
https://patriotpost.us/commentary/25031
My Rebuttal to An Anti-Gun Writer/Professor
In a recent post 4/26/14 in the National Memo "America is Exceptionally Dumb When It Comes To Guns", Cynthia Tucker has summed up the classic Progressive Liberal Elitist ideology of the Gun Grabbing Left in all its Incorrect Glory. I intend to take it apart piece by piece and post a rebuttal here, since my rebuttal being posted on the Uber Liberal National Memo would have the same chance as the proverbial Snowball in Hell.
Cynthia says in her diatribe against guns;
"While Americans typically laud our national “exceptionalism” — a sense that the trajectory of history has bestowed greatness upon the United States — there are a few of our distinctive characteristics that don’t deserve celebration. On the subject of firearms, for example, the United States is exceptionally irrational. No other nation has set guns aside as an object of worship."
Frankly I did not know we worshipped a metal object. What she fails to see is the respect for the tradition of self-defense against aggression that guns represent, and I believe it would give her the vapors to think the Founders placed that in the Bill of Rights so we could even defend ourselves from our own government if that became necessary.
Cynthia contends again quoting from the article;
"We have let a blood-soaked gun lobby dictate our laws and regulations on firearms; we have passed “stand your ground” laws that allow violent and angry men to murder unarmed people; we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy military-style assault weapons with which they wreak havoc on crowds. Last week, Georgia governor Nathan Deal signed a bill into law that would allow denizens of his state to carry firearms into government buildings, bars and, God help us, churches."
I don't see a blood soaked Gun lobby, actually I see where the Congressional "Gun Free Zones" are getting more and more blood soaked with innocent blood because the government has stripped away any self-defense from them and chastises Georgia Governor Nathan Deal for ending the open season shooting galleries we call "Gun Free Zones. . Again, she accuses law abiding people of being Idolaters and "Worshiping" firearms. She even attacks stand your ground laws and seemingly promotes not defending your life. She makes the same inane comment about Semi-automatic look alike firearms calling them "Assault Weapons" we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy. Seems to me she recognizes a real threat but thinks that burying ones head in the sand will work better than actually defending one’s self from deadly force with deadly force.
Cynthia blames the gun lobby;
"In addition, we have allowed the gun lobby to suppress research into the public health consequences of our firearms-worshipping culture. Indeed, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — running in a crowded GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — has recently reversed himself, going back on an earlier pledge to support such studies. It hardly gets any loonier than that."
I can't get over the excessive use of the word "Worshiping" but seeing that she seems to be a dyed in the wool Progressive/Liberal, I wonder now of she really knows the meaning of the word? She blames the Gun Lobby for being the reason that research into public health consequences of our "firearms-worshiping" culture. She does this complete with a dig at the GOP candidate for supporting that study. Sometimes I don't understand the twisted illogical rhetoric the Left uses to try and spin everything their way.
This is a sample of that twisted illogical rhetoric Cynthia ascribes to;
"In the 1990s, the National Rifle Association successfully stymied public health researchers who wanted to study the causes and consequences of gun violence. According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, “funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to around $100,000 in 2012.”
The gun lobby clearly fears that science will discover that guns are dangerous and that, well, more guns are more dangerous. (To quote that famous philosopher Stephen Colbert, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”)
I kinda like how she elevates a professional comic to the status of "Famous Philosopher" and "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Draw your own conclusions on those two statements.
Cynthia touts Sandy Hook;
"However, after the Sandy Hook atrocity in December 2012, it appeared that the dead bodies of 20 small children — and six adults — might be enough to finally restore some sanity to the national conversation. President Obama issued a presidential memorandum ordering the CDC to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” The National Rifle Association didn’t immediately object, since it recognized the fraught politics of that grief-laden moment."
I see where she is using the stale rhetoric of the left and seems to be using the loss of innocent life to promote her political philosophy of further stripping away any protections we have left against Deadly Force. She even accuses the NRA as being sensitive to anti-gun politics brought about by that incident. However she fails to see where many lives could have been saved if there were responsible teachers or administrators on the scene to shoot down the rampant killer before he could have killed so many people. She even ignores the sacrifice the principal made in an attempt to put herself defenselessly between the shooter and the children, or how the outcome would have been different if that principal had been trained and armed.
Cynthia went on to chastise the NRA;
"Some of the NRA’s supporters, too, were muted, seemingly willing to consider modest measures to improve public safety. Kingston was among those willing to support more research on gun violence, saying, “Let’s let the data lead rather than our political opinions.”
I seems to me that NRA supporters were also shocked and in deference to the families of the dead remained quiet on the subject for a reasonable period where those families could grieve over their loss before being accosted by the media circus and unfounded accusations that clouded the real issue of Gun Free Zones attracting deranged or mentally unbalanced as free fire zones with little to no chance of being harmed themselves.
Cynthia quotes Rep. Kingston
“"At a Savannah, Georgia, gathering shortly after Sandy Hook, he (Rep. Jack Kingston) said: “You have to be a pretty sick person to squeeze a trigger on a human being, particularly unarmed children at a school. I think if we focus and keep beating up on the weapon as the problem, we are missing the big picture of mental health that we can come together on as Democrats and Republicans. I spoke with the head of the CDC last week. I think we can find some common ground.”"
I agree with Rep. Kingston about beating up on the weapon, but I want to know who is going to determine what constitutes mental problems, and what criteria is going to be used to determine if a person is not allowed to have a firearm. I have seen several quotes from the Congress and administration, and some of the regulations now in effect such as even grief counseling for the loss of a loved one being classified by the gun grabbers as reason to confiscate legally owned guns. I want anything concerning mental conditions to be written down in hard and fast rules that are clear to not only the professionals but to the public at large as the guidelines that are set in stone.
Cynthia casts aspersions on Kingston;
"But Kingston now finds himself in a GOP primary in which some of his right-wing opponents have tagged him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), despite his solidly conservative credentials. That has left him desperate to court the crazies among his constituents, lest the “fire-at-will” crowd doubt his fidelity to the notion that every American should own his own shoulder-fired missile launcher."
I find it offensive that Cynthia would assume that Kingston's constituents are "fire-at-will" crazies who believe every American should have the right to own shoulder fired missiles. that Inflammatory Rhetoric reminds me of another person who touted Law and Order and confiscating firearms to insure the safety of the public, Adolph Hitler used the same flawed Rhetoric to disarm and then murder as every Dictator historically has done.
Cynthia spinning another Quote from article;
"So Kingston has dutifully signed up to block Obama’s request for CDC funding for gun violence research, telling ProPublica recently that “the president’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included” in the next appropriations bill."
That means that some of the questions we desperately need answered won’t get the inquiry they deserve: Do background checks deter gun violence? How many mass shooters had a detectable mental illness? What is the link between suicide and gun ownership? Even Kingston’s question about a possible link between violent video games and mass shootings won’t be studied.
That’s just nuts, a reminder of our willingness to be exceptionally dumb about some things."
After stating that Kingston had signed Obama's request for CDC funding, Cynthia states that Kingston told ProPublica news (supposedly independent but in fact leans hard left) the President wanted funding for his propaganda on gun grabbing. Talk about trying to have it both ways for her side. She seemingly downplays questions like background checks and gun violence, and other reasonable questions that should be looked at without any Bias on the part of the researchers to push a political agenda. She again ascribes some form of mental blind spot/stupidity to the public that do not think exactly as she does in her last line.
Should you want to contact her with your views on what she has said, see the address below;
(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)
These are my rebuttal comments, and I stand by them.
The Tradesman
Cynthia says in her diatribe against guns;
"While Americans typically laud our national “exceptionalism” — a sense that the trajectory of history has bestowed greatness upon the United States — there are a few of our distinctive characteristics that don’t deserve celebration. On the subject of firearms, for example, the United States is exceptionally irrational. No other nation has set guns aside as an object of worship."
Frankly I did not know we worshipped a metal object. What she fails to see is the respect for the tradition of self-defense against aggression that guns represent, and I believe it would give her the vapors to think the Founders placed that in the Bill of Rights so we could even defend ourselves from our own government if that became necessary.
Cynthia contends again quoting from the article;
"We have let a blood-soaked gun lobby dictate our laws and regulations on firearms; we have passed “stand your ground” laws that allow violent and angry men to murder unarmed people; we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy military-style assault weapons with which they wreak havoc on crowds. Last week, Georgia governor Nathan Deal signed a bill into law that would allow denizens of his state to carry firearms into government buildings, bars and, God help us, churches."
I don't see a blood soaked Gun lobby, actually I see where the Congressional "Gun Free Zones" are getting more and more blood soaked with innocent blood because the government has stripped away any self-defense from them and chastises Georgia Governor Nathan Deal for ending the open season shooting galleries we call "Gun Free Zones. . Again, she accuses law abiding people of being Idolaters and "Worshiping" firearms. She even attacks stand your ground laws and seemingly promotes not defending your life. She makes the same inane comment about Semi-automatic look alike firearms calling them "Assault Weapons" we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy. Seems to me she recognizes a real threat but thinks that burying ones head in the sand will work better than actually defending one’s self from deadly force with deadly force.
Cynthia blames the gun lobby;
"In addition, we have allowed the gun lobby to suppress research into the public health consequences of our firearms-worshipping culture. Indeed, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — running in a crowded GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — has recently reversed himself, going back on an earlier pledge to support such studies. It hardly gets any loonier than that."
I can't get over the excessive use of the word "Worshiping" but seeing that she seems to be a dyed in the wool Progressive/Liberal, I wonder now of she really knows the meaning of the word? She blames the Gun Lobby for being the reason that research into public health consequences of our "firearms-worshiping" culture. She does this complete with a dig at the GOP candidate for supporting that study. Sometimes I don't understand the twisted illogical rhetoric the Left uses to try and spin everything their way.
This is a sample of that twisted illogical rhetoric Cynthia ascribes to;
"In the 1990s, the National Rifle Association successfully stymied public health researchers who wanted to study the causes and consequences of gun violence. According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, “funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to around $100,000 in 2012.”
The gun lobby clearly fears that science will discover that guns are dangerous and that, well, more guns are more dangerous. (To quote that famous philosopher Stephen Colbert, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”)
I kinda like how she elevates a professional comic to the status of "Famous Philosopher" and "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Draw your own conclusions on those two statements.
Cynthia touts Sandy Hook;
"However, after the Sandy Hook atrocity in December 2012, it appeared that the dead bodies of 20 small children — and six adults — might be enough to finally restore some sanity to the national conversation. President Obama issued a presidential memorandum ordering the CDC to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” The National Rifle Association didn’t immediately object, since it recognized the fraught politics of that grief-laden moment."
I see where she is using the stale rhetoric of the left and seems to be using the loss of innocent life to promote her political philosophy of further stripping away any protections we have left against Deadly Force. She even accuses the NRA as being sensitive to anti-gun politics brought about by that incident. However she fails to see where many lives could have been saved if there were responsible teachers or administrators on the scene to shoot down the rampant killer before he could have killed so many people. She even ignores the sacrifice the principal made in an attempt to put herself defenselessly between the shooter and the children, or how the outcome would have been different if that principal had been trained and armed.
Cynthia went on to chastise the NRA;
"Some of the NRA’s supporters, too, were muted, seemingly willing to consider modest measures to improve public safety. Kingston was among those willing to support more research on gun violence, saying, “Let’s let the data lead rather than our political opinions.”
I seems to me that NRA supporters were also shocked and in deference to the families of the dead remained quiet on the subject for a reasonable period where those families could grieve over their loss before being accosted by the media circus and unfounded accusations that clouded the real issue of Gun Free Zones attracting deranged or mentally unbalanced as free fire zones with little to no chance of being harmed themselves.
Cynthia quotes Rep. Kingston
“"At a Savannah, Georgia, gathering shortly after Sandy Hook, he (Rep. Jack Kingston) said: “You have to be a pretty sick person to squeeze a trigger on a human being, particularly unarmed children at a school. I think if we focus and keep beating up on the weapon as the problem, we are missing the big picture of mental health that we can come together on as Democrats and Republicans. I spoke with the head of the CDC last week. I think we can find some common ground.”"
I agree with Rep. Kingston about beating up on the weapon, but I want to know who is going to determine what constitutes mental problems, and what criteria is going to be used to determine if a person is not allowed to have a firearm. I have seen several quotes from the Congress and administration, and some of the regulations now in effect such as even grief counseling for the loss of a loved one being classified by the gun grabbers as reason to confiscate legally owned guns. I want anything concerning mental conditions to be written down in hard and fast rules that are clear to not only the professionals but to the public at large as the guidelines that are set in stone.
Cynthia casts aspersions on Kingston;
"But Kingston now finds himself in a GOP primary in which some of his right-wing opponents have tagged him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), despite his solidly conservative credentials. That has left him desperate to court the crazies among his constituents, lest the “fire-at-will” crowd doubt his fidelity to the notion that every American should own his own shoulder-fired missile launcher."
I find it offensive that Cynthia would assume that Kingston's constituents are "fire-at-will" crazies who believe every American should have the right to own shoulder fired missiles. that Inflammatory Rhetoric reminds me of another person who touted Law and Order and confiscating firearms to insure the safety of the public, Adolph Hitler used the same flawed Rhetoric to disarm and then murder as every Dictator historically has done.
Cynthia spinning another Quote from article;
"So Kingston has dutifully signed up to block Obama’s request for CDC funding for gun violence research, telling ProPublica recently that “the president’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives through the CDC will not be included” in the next appropriations bill."
That means that some of the questions we desperately need answered won’t get the inquiry they deserve: Do background checks deter gun violence? How many mass shooters had a detectable mental illness? What is the link between suicide and gun ownership? Even Kingston’s question about a possible link between violent video games and mass shootings won’t be studied.
That’s just nuts, a reminder of our willingness to be exceptionally dumb about some things."
After stating that Kingston had signed Obama's request for CDC funding, Cynthia states that Kingston told ProPublica news (supposedly independent but in fact leans hard left) the President wanted funding for his propaganda on gun grabbing. Talk about trying to have it both ways for her side. She seemingly downplays questions like background checks and gun violence, and other reasonable questions that should be looked at without any Bias on the part of the researchers to push a political agenda. She again ascribes some form of mental blind spot/stupidity to the public that do not think exactly as she does in her last line.
Should you want to contact her with your views on what she has said, see the address below;
(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)
These are my rebuttal comments, and I stand by them.
The Tradesman
Dr. Charles Krauthammer
1. Born: March 13, 1950
2. Birthplace: New York City, New York
3. Raised in Montreal, Canada
4. Attended Mc Gill University and Harvard Medical School
5. 1972 diving accident left him paralyzed from the neck down
6. Directed psychiatric research for the Carter administration
7. Began writing career in 1981 with The New Republic
8. Helped develop the "Reagan Doctrine" in the 80's
9. Appointed to Presidential Council on Bioethics in 2002
Dr. Krauthammer is frequently on the Fox News Channel. He is an M.D., a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening. Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger, nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a
frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.
The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.
Even 2 Democrats at my table agreed with everything he said!
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual.
He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show
his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking
down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons
still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the
perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and
Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing
with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what
he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to
Washington to make something out of himself but rather to change
everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straight
forward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a
heavy hand and wants to level the playing field with income
redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to
model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC
EDUCATION and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't
care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an
early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle
growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his
healthcare program because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people
to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the
roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of
services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic
types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are
going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries.
This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist;
rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of
revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the
hard left. Again, watch what he DOES, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the
United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above
it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their
agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in
Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an
imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble
nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President, ever,
who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He would like to blame
all problems on Bush, from the past, and hopefully his successor in the
future. He has a huge ego and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a
narcissist.
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will
emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will
never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim
Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February)
are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has
baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be
seriously boning up on facts and information if she is to be a serious
candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes,
smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense,
and State's Rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and
outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could
lead to hyperinflation, depression, or worse. No country has ever spent
itself into prosperity. The Media is giving Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a
Pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come
due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the
stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies,
unions, and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for
#4 above.
10. When Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in,
we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely
without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of
change caused people to act emotionally. Any Democrat would have won
this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. If the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will
be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Democrats continue to
roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about
the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening
in Washington and the Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going
on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and
join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on
most issues and can reclaim our country before it's far too late.
Do yourself a long-term favor. Send this to all who will
listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures
and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is
really going on in Washington, and our action pursuant to that
understanding!!
It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!!
Start with educating your friends and neighbors. If you are
not interested in justice or in truth, delete this. However, if you hold
sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution©
By all means, please PASS it ON!
2. Birthplace: New York City, New York
3. Raised in Montreal, Canada
4. Attended Mc Gill University and Harvard Medical School
5. 1972 diving accident left him paralyzed from the neck down
6. Directed psychiatric research for the Carter administration
7. Began writing career in 1981 with The New Republic
8. Helped develop the "Reagan Doctrine" in the 80's
9. Appointed to Presidential Council on Bioethics in 2002
Dr. Krauthammer is frequently on the Fox News Channel. He is an M.D., a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening. Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger, nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a
frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.
The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.
Even 2 Democrats at my table agreed with everything he said!
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual.
He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show
his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking
down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons
still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the
perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and
Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing
with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what
he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to
Washington to make something out of himself but rather to change
everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straight
forward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a
heavy hand and wants to level the playing field with income
redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to
model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC
EDUCATION and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't
care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an
early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle
growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his
healthcare program because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people
to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the
roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of
services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic
types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are
going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries.
This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist;
rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of
revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the
hard left. Again, watch what he DOES, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the
United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above
it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their
agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in
Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an
imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble
nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President, ever,
who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He would like to blame
all problems on Bush, from the past, and hopefully his successor in the
future. He has a huge ego and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a
narcissist.
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will
emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will
never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim
Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February)
are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has
baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be
seriously boning up on facts and information if she is to be a serious
candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes,
smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense,
and State's Rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and
outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could
lead to hyperinflation, depression, or worse. No country has ever spent
itself into prosperity. The Media is giving Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a
Pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come
due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the
stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies,
unions, and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for
#4 above.
10. When Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in,
we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely
without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of
change caused people to act emotionally. Any Democrat would have won
this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. If the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will
be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Democrats continue to
roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about
the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening
in Washington and the Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going
on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and
join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on
most issues and can reclaim our country before it's far too late.
Do yourself a long-term favor. Send this to all who will
listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures
and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is
really going on in Washington, and our action pursuant to that
understanding!!
It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!!
Start with educating your friends and neighbors. If you are
not interested in justice or in truth, delete this. However, if you hold
sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution©
By all means, please PASS it ON!
Government agency (BLM) has drawn an illegal line in the sand
The Federal Government has reared it's ugly lawless head, and in the worst traditions of the Obama Administration, has through the auspices of the Bureau of Land Management, decided to ignore personal property rights and other Constitutional Laws and Principles. Yes we can see where the government believes it can just move in and dictate to citizens as if we were the proletariat in a Communist Dictatorship.
I commend all the true and faithful Americans who rallied at the Bundy Ranch, and stood up to the dictatorial machinations of a politically controlled government agency set to confiscate without compensation, private property based on their own decision that the property was forfeit. It was either that or something more nefarious like bankrupting the rancher to get him to vacate the land. What the Loyal American citizens have done at that ranch, is to show the Federal Government that we as Americans will no longer stand idly by and passively accept the illegal and unconstitutional edicts from a rogue lawless government, that has been out of control for decades. We will attempt to use every peaceful process, but we will no longer accept violation of the natural rights granted to each of us by God. While we will continue to show restraint to government aggression, we WILL NOT give up our guns, our land, or our other freedoms without a fight. We, believing in peace through strength, will not originate the fight, but we will no longer stand down like sheep to government originated physical aggression.
The Federal Government through it's agencies has seriously overstepped it's constitutional authority, and the Administration with their crony's like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etal., Have shown nothing but abject contempt for the rights of American citizens and the rights of the States codified in our Constitution. Contrary to their mis-guided attempt to propagandize about the Constitution being a living document open to interpretation, it is a closed document that codifies the parameters of federal governmental actions and authority. It's high time for the citizens of America to enforce those restrictions and force through the ballot box if possible, the recalcitrant Congress and Administration to obey the Laws of the Land.
The Administration in it's arrogance and disregard for the Constitutional Laws that are supposed to govern us, regularly ignores our beliefs, and tries to impose it's beliefs on us, just like any third world dictator does with their populations. When we rally and protest over the excesses the Administration lies and creates false flag scandals to cover up their criminality while ultimately protecting those of it's Elite Crony's who are actively violating the law. If it fails at those tactics it reverts to using illegal force against it's citizens. I cite the IRS targeting and Sebelius, the Benghazi tragedy and Clinton/Obama involvement, the NSA illegal spying, the BLM attack on the Bundy ranch, the massive removal of command line military personnel, alleged terrorists in the White House staff as advisers, and many many more instances I will leave unnamed. In many Progressive/Socialist controlled states, Americans are being forced to turn in their guns or be charged as felons. That is if not having them forcibly taken by the Militarized Police agencies SWAT units as a matter of course (like New Orleans did during Katrina, and New York has done multiple times). Congress is complacent with this turn of events, so, they are part of the problem that desperately needs to be addressed by all loyal Americans before it's too late to peacefully correct the situation.
Since 1913, the government has not really been on the side of the real Americans, it has been subverted to work for the progressive elites, who are ever expanding central government. The only way we can have a chance of returning to our Constitutional values, is by driving the Liberal/Progressives away from government in droves. The Progressive spearhead is populated by the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all their ilk. These people who are basically inimical to Liberty and Freedom have populated the Federal Bureaucracies like the EPA, FCC,FDA,DOE, DOJ etc., with Radicals who believe people are the problem with the planet and want everyone like Mr. Bundy to go broke and go on welfare where they can dictate terms to them or let them starve or rot in jails for non-compliance.
There are verified reports from credible people on site, that the BLM personnel ordering attack dogs on innocent bystanders as seen and heard in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKIddR_x8U) and even going on record saying they "Hoped the protesters were ready to die". This is what it has come to with the Federal goon squads acting like Stalin's KGB making felonious attacks on citizens multiple times to intimidate them into compliance with illegal orders. Here's the full video of the BLM Tasering citizens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA).
I commend all the true and faithful Americans who rallied at the Bundy Ranch, and stood up to the dictatorial machinations of a politically controlled government agency set to confiscate without compensation, private property based on their own decision that the property was forfeit. It was either that or something more nefarious like bankrupting the rancher to get him to vacate the land. What the Loyal American citizens have done at that ranch, is to show the Federal Government that we as Americans will no longer stand idly by and passively accept the illegal and unconstitutional edicts from a rogue lawless government, that has been out of control for decades. We will attempt to use every peaceful process, but we will no longer accept violation of the natural rights granted to each of us by God. While we will continue to show restraint to government aggression, we WILL NOT give up our guns, our land, or our other freedoms without a fight. We, believing in peace through strength, will not originate the fight, but we will no longer stand down like sheep to government originated physical aggression.
The Federal Government through it's agencies has seriously overstepped it's constitutional authority, and the Administration with their crony's like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etal., Have shown nothing but abject contempt for the rights of American citizens and the rights of the States codified in our Constitution. Contrary to their mis-guided attempt to propagandize about the Constitution being a living document open to interpretation, it is a closed document that codifies the parameters of federal governmental actions and authority. It's high time for the citizens of America to enforce those restrictions and force through the ballot box if possible, the recalcitrant Congress and Administration to obey the Laws of the Land.
The Administration in it's arrogance and disregard for the Constitutional Laws that are supposed to govern us, regularly ignores our beliefs, and tries to impose it's beliefs on us, just like any third world dictator does with their populations. When we rally and protest over the excesses the Administration lies and creates false flag scandals to cover up their criminality while ultimately protecting those of it's Elite Crony's who are actively violating the law. If it fails at those tactics it reverts to using illegal force against it's citizens. I cite the IRS targeting and Sebelius, the Benghazi tragedy and Clinton/Obama involvement, the NSA illegal spying, the BLM attack on the Bundy ranch, the massive removal of command line military personnel, alleged terrorists in the White House staff as advisers, and many many more instances I will leave unnamed. In many Progressive/Socialist controlled states, Americans are being forced to turn in their guns or be charged as felons. That is if not having them forcibly taken by the Militarized Police agencies SWAT units as a matter of course (like New Orleans did during Katrina, and New York has done multiple times). Congress is complacent with this turn of events, so, they are part of the problem that desperately needs to be addressed by all loyal Americans before it's too late to peacefully correct the situation.
Since 1913, the government has not really been on the side of the real Americans, it has been subverted to work for the progressive elites, who are ever expanding central government. The only way we can have a chance of returning to our Constitutional values, is by driving the Liberal/Progressives away from government in droves. The Progressive spearhead is populated by the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all their ilk. These people who are basically inimical to Liberty and Freedom have populated the Federal Bureaucracies like the EPA, FCC,FDA,DOE, DOJ etc., with Radicals who believe people are the problem with the planet and want everyone like Mr. Bundy to go broke and go on welfare where they can dictate terms to them or let them starve or rot in jails for non-compliance.
There are verified reports from credible people on site, that the BLM personnel ordering attack dogs on innocent bystanders as seen and heard in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKIddR_x8U) and even going on record saying they "Hoped the protesters were ready to die". This is what it has come to with the Federal goon squads acting like Stalin's KGB making felonious attacks on citizens multiple times to intimidate them into compliance with illegal orders. Here's the full video of the BLM Tasering citizens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA).
image URL (http://girlsjustwanna.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-People-vs-BLM.jpg)
Look at the photo where a band of armed Americans are resisting the illegal actions of the BLM. The BLM had ordered the FAA to ban all overflights of the area and to cut cell phone coverage in an attempt to keep the truth from the American people, (http://www.naturalnews.com/044689_air_traffic_ban_Bundy_Ranch_bovine_concentration_camps.html) and to stop any uncontrolled media coverage of their operations and possibly to cover up their possession of the stolen bovines of Bundy's where they were taken and corralled.they may even have done it as a precursor to mounting an armed attack on american Citizens who were demanding their Constitutional rights. there is even reasonable information that suggests Democratic Senator Harry Reid was involved with this takeover from the beginning (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142972/posts?page=99)
In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=365iSF14F8) has additional information on what the Federal BLM officers were attempting. Remember the citizens had fired no shots and had made no aggressive attacks against the Federal Officers. Does anyone remember a few years ago when federal Officers surrounded the Waco compound and burned it to the ground saying it was an accident? I wonder what would have happened if the information had not gotten out in a timely manner. Look for the Corrupt Federal Government Agencies to start blocking information flows before they start an operation in the future. We also need to find alternate ways to communicate like we did with the CB radios at the start of the 55 mph restrictions years ago.
Only since the truth got out has the BLM back pedaled and have released the stolen herd of Bundy's cattle. I don't think they would have if American Citizens had believed the outright lies of the Progressive/socialist controlled media like CNN and MSNBC news reports claiming falsely that the protesters had attacked the BLM officers.We can be proud that there are still large numbers of Americans who outraged by an aggressive and lawless government banded together like the Minutemen of old, and stood up to Tyranny even at the risk of being killed themselves.
It's time to stand up for our Beliefs and Freedoms, and refute the crap and lies the Progressive machine has poisoned our Nation with for the last hundred plus years.
The Tradesman
In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=365iSF14F8) has additional information on what the Federal BLM officers were attempting. Remember the citizens had fired no shots and had made no aggressive attacks against the Federal Officers. Does anyone remember a few years ago when federal Officers surrounded the Waco compound and burned it to the ground saying it was an accident? I wonder what would have happened if the information had not gotten out in a timely manner. Look for the Corrupt Federal Government Agencies to start blocking information flows before they start an operation in the future. We also need to find alternate ways to communicate like we did with the CB radios at the start of the 55 mph restrictions years ago.
Only since the truth got out has the BLM back pedaled and have released the stolen herd of Bundy's cattle. I don't think they would have if American Citizens had believed the outright lies of the Progressive/socialist controlled media like CNN and MSNBC news reports claiming falsely that the protesters had attacked the BLM officers.We can be proud that there are still large numbers of Americans who outraged by an aggressive and lawless government banded together like the Minutemen of old, and stood up to Tyranny even at the risk of being killed themselves.
It's time to stand up for our Beliefs and Freedoms, and refute the crap and lies the Progressive machine has poisoned our Nation with for the last hundred plus years.
The Tradesman
You might not know it but we're losing ground
I know no one wants to hear that, but we will unless we decide to unite and fight the coming darkness that is being forced over the land. We do know who the enemies are, so, why aren't we fighting them tooth and nail? So far we have fallen into every distracting trap they have set for us to break our focus, and make it look like we are trying to do everything at once. We all know how important it will be to get a Conservative President into office in 2017 when Obama's reign of terror is finally over. Will it be over? Not if the Progressives in Congress maintain their power base!
A good portion of that depends on what happens in the 2014 election, and that is only months away. We have been tricked into looking too far into the future for our salvation as a Free Nation ruled by Constitutional law. We can see where the Congress has just went along at the crucial points where they could have stopped it from happening. They did not even begin to check out the 'Bona Fides' of Obama when the question was raised and still have not, this has caused a two term long distraction from the real issues of this president ignoring the Constitution, and selectively enforcing the laws at his whim.
The Senate has been held hostage by a senile brain damaged Harry Reid (my opinion) and every budgetary bill sent to him was not allowed to reach the floor for debate, yet he blames the Republicans for being the ones who were refusing to cooperate. Unfortunately there seems to be a desire by the main stream media to only look at one point of view, and that point is not a conservative one.
We must realize that it isn't the President alone that has put us in this trick bag. A President can not legislate funds without Congress cooperating and providing the budget. Although the President has used or more importantly mis-used his executive orders to bring about regulations that have the force of law, Congress has been derelict in their duties to question and remove these regulations.
What we have now is an almost complete break down of our governmental structure. It has devolved from the representative government that our founders created, into a separate class of american elites whose only overriding agendas are to gain and maintain the power and money of there lifestyles. Where else can an employee just decide to give themselves a raise? Where else can a group of people exempt themselves from laws? Where else can that group of people ride rough shod over the rest of us under the guise of taking care of and helping us?
We the People need to correct these ongoing abuses of power and the abuses of power that the courts are guilty of doing by basically legislating from the bench with the proper use of the article V amendment proposal convention petitioned for by the States.
These are my considered beliefs.
the Tradesman
A good portion of that depends on what happens in the 2014 election, and that is only months away. We have been tricked into looking too far into the future for our salvation as a Free Nation ruled by Constitutional law. We can see where the Congress has just went along at the crucial points where they could have stopped it from happening. They did not even begin to check out the 'Bona Fides' of Obama when the question was raised and still have not, this has caused a two term long distraction from the real issues of this president ignoring the Constitution, and selectively enforcing the laws at his whim.
The Senate has been held hostage by a senile brain damaged Harry Reid (my opinion) and every budgetary bill sent to him was not allowed to reach the floor for debate, yet he blames the Republicans for being the ones who were refusing to cooperate. Unfortunately there seems to be a desire by the main stream media to only look at one point of view, and that point is not a conservative one.
We must realize that it isn't the President alone that has put us in this trick bag. A President can not legislate funds without Congress cooperating and providing the budget. Although the President has used or more importantly mis-used his executive orders to bring about regulations that have the force of law, Congress has been derelict in their duties to question and remove these regulations.
What we have now is an almost complete break down of our governmental structure. It has devolved from the representative government that our founders created, into a separate class of american elites whose only overriding agendas are to gain and maintain the power and money of there lifestyles. Where else can an employee just decide to give themselves a raise? Where else can a group of people exempt themselves from laws? Where else can that group of people ride rough shod over the rest of us under the guise of taking care of and helping us?
We the People need to correct these ongoing abuses of power and the abuses of power that the courts are guilty of doing by basically legislating from the bench with the proper use of the article V amendment proposal convention petitioned for by the States.
These are my considered beliefs.
the Tradesman
Warning!!
An article at;( http://www.freemansperspective.com/governments-manipulate/ ) lists information about Government manipulation of the net.
The Two Sites ( http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Anonymous-Government-contractor-has-weaponized-social-media ) and
( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All ) have in depth articles that show we are being manipulated or potentially manipulated by our own and other governments. They have developed a set of software and servers that allow one person to create multiple persona's and IP addresses. the software will allow an individual operator to interact with all of his persona's on Social networks, conventional online services, and has a real-time display of local information.
Quote from Article;(" Operation Earnest Voice hopes to counter extremist ideology and propaganda, and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard, according to a statementmade by General Petraeus last March.") If you add this to what the NSA has been doing and to the war on Conservatives and conservative sites you can see the various permutations that can be used to discredit any movement that is not sanctioned by the people currently in power in the Government.
I strongly suggest that everyone read the listed articles and form their own opinion of what is or soon may be happening to us.
The Two Sites ( http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Anonymous-Government-contractor-has-weaponized-social-media ) and
( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All ) have in depth articles that show we are being manipulated or potentially manipulated by our own and other governments. They have developed a set of software and servers that allow one person to create multiple persona's and IP addresses. the software will allow an individual operator to interact with all of his persona's on Social networks, conventional online services, and has a real-time display of local information.
Quote from Article;(" Operation Earnest Voice hopes to counter extremist ideology and propaganda, and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard, according to a statementmade by General Petraeus last March.") If you add this to what the NSA has been doing and to the war on Conservatives and conservative sites you can see the various permutations that can be used to discredit any movement that is not sanctioned by the people currently in power in the Government.
I strongly suggest that everyone read the listed articles and form their own opinion of what is or soon may be happening to us.
COMING CHANGES IN OUR LIVES
Whether these changes are good or bad, depends in part on how we adapt to them but, ready or not, here they come!
01.The Post Office:
Get ready to imagine a world without the Post office. They are so deeply in financial trouble that there is probably no way to sustain it long term. Email, Fed Ex, and UPS have just about wiped out the inimum revenue needed to keep the post office alive. Most of your mail every day is junk mail and bills.
02.The Check:
Britain is already laying the groundwork to do away with checks by 2018. It costs the financial system billions of dollars a year to process checks. Plastic cards and online transactions will lead to the eventual demise of the check. This plays right into the death of the post office. If you never paid your bills by mail and never received them by mail, the post office would absolutely go out of business.
03.The Newspaper:
The younger generation simply do not read the newspaper. They certainly don't subscribe to a daily delivered print edition. That may go the way of the milkman and the laundry man. As for reading the paper online, get ready to pay for it. The rise in mobile Internet devices and e-readers has caused all the newspaper and magazine publishers to form an alliance. They have met with Apple, Amazon, and the major cell phone companies to develop a model for paid subscription services.
04.The Book:
You say you will never give up the physical book that you hold in your hand and turn the literal pages. I said the same thing about downloading music from iTunes. I wanted my hard copy CD. But I quickly changed my mind when I discovered that I could get albums for half the price without ever leaving home to get the latest music. The same thing will happen with books. You can browse a bookstore online and even read a preview chapter before you buy. And the price is less than half that of a real book, and think of the convenience once you start flicking your fingers on the screen instead of the book, you find that you are lost in the story, can't wait to see what happens next, and you forget that you're holding a gadget instead of a book.
05.The Land Line Telephone:
Unless you have a large family and make a lot of local calls, you don't need it anymore. Most people keep it simply because they've always had it. But you are paying double charges for that extra service. All the cell phone companies will let you call customers using the same cell provider for no charge against your minutes. BUT, obuma CAN TURN OFF CELL PHONES IN SECONDS!
06.Music:
This is one of the saddest parts of the change story. The music industry is dying a slow death. Not just because of illegal downloading. It's the lack of innovative new music being given a chance to get to the people who like to hear it.
Greed and corruption is the problem. The record labels and the radio conglomerates simply self-destruction. Over 40% of the music purchased today is "catalog items," meaning traditional music that the public is familiar with. Older established artists.
This is also true on the live concert circuit. To explore this fascinating and disturbing topic further, check out the book, "Appetite for Self-Destruction" by Steve Knopper, and the video documentary, "Before the Music Dies."
07. Television. Revenues to the networks are down dramatically:
Not just because of the economy. People are watching TV and movies streamed from their computers. And they're playing games and doing lots of other things that take up the time that used to be spent watching TV. Prime time shows have degenerated down to lower than the lowest common denominator.
Cable rates are skyrocketing and commercials run about every 4 minutes and 30 seconds. I say good riddance to most of it. It's time for the cable companies to be put out of our misery. Let the people choose what they want to watch online and through Netflix.
08.The "Things." That You Own:
Many of the very possessions that we used to own are still in our lives, but we may not actually own them in the future. They may simply reside in "the cloud." Today your computer has a hard drive and you store your pictures, music, movies, and documents. Your software is on a CD or DVD, and you can always re-install it if need be. But all of that is changing. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all finishing up their latest "cloud services." That means that when you turn on a computer, the Internet will be built into the operating system. So, Windows, Google, and the Mac OS will be tied straight into the Internet. If you click an icon, it will open something in the Internet cloud. If you save something, it will be saved to the cloud- And you probably will have to pay a monthly subscription fee to the cloud provider. In this virtual world, you can access your music or your books, or your whatever from any laptop or handheld device. That's the good news. But, will you actually own any of this "stuff" or will it all be able to disappear at any moment in a big "Poof?" Will most of the things in our lives be disposable and whimsical? It makes you want to run to the closet and pull out that photo album, grab a book from the shelf, or open up a old record album and pull out the record or CD case and pull out the insert.
09. Privacy:
If there ever was a concept that we can look back on nostalgically, it would be privacy. That's gone!
It's been gone for a long time anyway. There are cameras on the street, in most of the buildings, and even built into your computer and cell phone. But you can be sure that 24/7 "They" know who you are and where you are, right down to the GPS coordinates, and the Google Street View. If you buy something, your habit is put into a zillion profiles, and your ads will change to reflect those habits. And "They" will try to get you to buy something else. Again and again.
All we will have that can't be changed, are our Memories! AND THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT !!!
01.The Post Office:
Get ready to imagine a world without the Post office. They are so deeply in financial trouble that there is probably no way to sustain it long term. Email, Fed Ex, and UPS have just about wiped out the inimum revenue needed to keep the post office alive. Most of your mail every day is junk mail and bills.
02.The Check:
Britain is already laying the groundwork to do away with checks by 2018. It costs the financial system billions of dollars a year to process checks. Plastic cards and online transactions will lead to the eventual demise of the check. This plays right into the death of the post office. If you never paid your bills by mail and never received them by mail, the post office would absolutely go out of business.
03.The Newspaper:
The younger generation simply do not read the newspaper. They certainly don't subscribe to a daily delivered print edition. That may go the way of the milkman and the laundry man. As for reading the paper online, get ready to pay for it. The rise in mobile Internet devices and e-readers has caused all the newspaper and magazine publishers to form an alliance. They have met with Apple, Amazon, and the major cell phone companies to develop a model for paid subscription services.
04.The Book:
You say you will never give up the physical book that you hold in your hand and turn the literal pages. I said the same thing about downloading music from iTunes. I wanted my hard copy CD. But I quickly changed my mind when I discovered that I could get albums for half the price without ever leaving home to get the latest music. The same thing will happen with books. You can browse a bookstore online and even read a preview chapter before you buy. And the price is less than half that of a real book, and think of the convenience once you start flicking your fingers on the screen instead of the book, you find that you are lost in the story, can't wait to see what happens next, and you forget that you're holding a gadget instead of a book.
05.The Land Line Telephone:
Unless you have a large family and make a lot of local calls, you don't need it anymore. Most people keep it simply because they've always had it. But you are paying double charges for that extra service. All the cell phone companies will let you call customers using the same cell provider for no charge against your minutes. BUT, obuma CAN TURN OFF CELL PHONES IN SECONDS!
06.Music:
This is one of the saddest parts of the change story. The music industry is dying a slow death. Not just because of illegal downloading. It's the lack of innovative new music being given a chance to get to the people who like to hear it.
Greed and corruption is the problem. The record labels and the radio conglomerates simply self-destruction. Over 40% of the music purchased today is "catalog items," meaning traditional music that the public is familiar with. Older established artists.
This is also true on the live concert circuit. To explore this fascinating and disturbing topic further, check out the book, "Appetite for Self-Destruction" by Steve Knopper, and the video documentary, "Before the Music Dies."
07. Television. Revenues to the networks are down dramatically:
Not just because of the economy. People are watching TV and movies streamed from their computers. And they're playing games and doing lots of other things that take up the time that used to be spent watching TV. Prime time shows have degenerated down to lower than the lowest common denominator.
Cable rates are skyrocketing and commercials run about every 4 minutes and 30 seconds. I say good riddance to most of it. It's time for the cable companies to be put out of our misery. Let the people choose what they want to watch online and through Netflix.
08.The "Things." That You Own:
Many of the very possessions that we used to own are still in our lives, but we may not actually own them in the future. They may simply reside in "the cloud." Today your computer has a hard drive and you store your pictures, music, movies, and documents. Your software is on a CD or DVD, and you can always re-install it if need be. But all of that is changing. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all finishing up their latest "cloud services." That means that when you turn on a computer, the Internet will be built into the operating system. So, Windows, Google, and the Mac OS will be tied straight into the Internet. If you click an icon, it will open something in the Internet cloud. If you save something, it will be saved to the cloud- And you probably will have to pay a monthly subscription fee to the cloud provider. In this virtual world, you can access your music or your books, or your whatever from any laptop or handheld device. That's the good news. But, will you actually own any of this "stuff" or will it all be able to disappear at any moment in a big "Poof?" Will most of the things in our lives be disposable and whimsical? It makes you want to run to the closet and pull out that photo album, grab a book from the shelf, or open up a old record album and pull out the record or CD case and pull out the insert.
09. Privacy:
If there ever was a concept that we can look back on nostalgically, it would be privacy. That's gone!
It's been gone for a long time anyway. There are cameras on the street, in most of the buildings, and even built into your computer and cell phone. But you can be sure that 24/7 "They" know who you are and where you are, right down to the GPS coordinates, and the Google Street View. If you buy something, your habit is put into a zillion profiles, and your ads will change to reflect those habits. And "They" will try to get you to buy something else. Again and again.
All we will have that can't be changed, are our Memories! AND THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT !!!
Yes, You Are Being Manipulated by Your Government
FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Mar 20th, 2014
The truth that government agents are influencing people online has been visible for some time to those who were looking. For example, in 2011, we got proof that military contractors and the US Air Force were doing this. (See here and here.) There were other facts as well, including the publicly-stated wishes of Cass Sunstein.
Most people didn’t see those stories, of course, and those who mentioned them were thought to be crazy. “If it was true, we’d have heard about it!”
In early February, however, we got serious proof, courtesy of Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald. Honestly, I expected this to be a big story, like many of the previous Snowden leaks. Instead, the story went almost nowhere. The “news” simply refused to cover it. And while the story did run on a few websites, I don’t know of it running in any major newspaper or on any TV news, except perhaps RT, the Russian 24/7 English-language news channel. (NBC did run a prior and less troubling story.)
Read more....
http://www.freemansperspective.com/governments-manipulate/
The truth that government agents are influencing people online has been visible for some time to those who were looking. For example, in 2011, we got proof that military contractors and the US Air Force were doing this. (See here and here.) There were other facts as well, including the publicly-stated wishes of Cass Sunstein.
Most people didn’t see those stories, of course, and those who mentioned them were thought to be crazy. “If it was true, we’d have heard about it!”
In early February, however, we got serious proof, courtesy of Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald. Honestly, I expected this to be a big story, like many of the previous Snowden leaks. Instead, the story went almost nowhere. The “news” simply refused to cover it. And while the story did run on a few websites, I don’t know of it running in any major newspaper or on any TV news, except perhaps RT, the Russian 24/7 English-language news channel. (NBC did run a prior and less troubling story.)
Read more....
http://www.freemansperspective.com/governments-manipulate/
Will we succeed or fail on Article V?
We need some kind of order to the State process of Article V. We need to unify all the various factions, we may get snowed under by the Progressives who are clamoring for an Article V to use to their agenda's benefit, and they are already organized much better than us. I believe we must organize much better and stronger immediately, so we stand a chance of getting our agenda for amendments passed over theirs.
Are we headed to abject failure with our push for an Article V Amendment Convention? I am watching the arguments for an Article V Convention unfold, and it seems that like most of what the other things the conservative factions are trying to do, the many different proponents of an Article V convention are all over the map with their proposals.
The main thrust we have is to Repeal the 14th, 16th & 17th Amendments. I see that as our number one priority. However we can not afford to ignore the other factions who want a Balanced Budget Amendment because if we do we might just get enough poorly worded language for the Congress to use it as another reason to increase taxes to offset spending. We need to come up with a wording that forbids the Congress from spending beyond a fixed portion of the previous years collected revenues and blocks them from increasing revenues without the public voting on an increase. I hate to admit it but I think we must expand our agenda to consolidate the differing amendment proposals under a unified petition to all the State Legislatures. This will take some very educated statesmen who can wend all the major amendment proposals into a few short and clear proposals like our proposal for a 28th amendment, and complimentary to it, as a package to be sent to State Legislatures to order their delegates to propose, or to vote on as a pre ratified Amendment sent to Congress..
Another cherished amendment is the term limits for Congress, I have heard of three different plans, none of which would stop a career politician from just moving from one House to the other for the prescribed term limits. What we need is an amendment that gives a total combined amount of terms that could be spent in Congress regardless of which branch the politician decided to run for, and maybe adjust the length of term time for the Senate down to four years per term from the present six. I would opt for 12 years combined time for Congressional limits with the corresponding loss of or highly amended retirement packages comparable to what they would receive on average in civilian private industry jobs, and that could be tied to their private industry retirements as a percentage of that retirement package, and not an addition to it.
Many people are clamoring for a different means of taxation be it Flat Tax, Fixed Tax, or Fair Tax. This presents a dilemma for our agenda to get the 16th Amendment repealed because we will be expected to come up with a plan to generate revenues in a fair fashion. Maybe we could think outside the box on this one and come up with a really workable plan to properly apportion the taxation across the complete spectrum of Private Business, and even possibly return to the taxation we had before the 16th was pushed on us. I'm no economist so I would ask those who are to come up with viable plans to replace the income tax. If we don't have something that will work, we won't get the 16th repealed.
I have also seen a lot of negative reactions to our wanting to get the 14th Amendment Repealed. Unfortunately all of them are based on ignorance of what the 14th Amendment was supposed to do, and ignorance of what it in fact does to hurt us today. If we want to be successful with our stated repeal amendment we will need to start a massive educational program geared to reach the common man quickly and forcefully to explain just how insidious and destructive to the Republic this Amendment is.
The 17th Amendment educational process will be a different sell altogether. First we will have to educate the public about the reasons the Senators were supposed to represent the states and not the people or just be party line hacks. I don't believe they even teach the reasons that there are only two Senators per State and that having an equal number of Senators was part and parcel of the compromise that insured every State would have equal representation and have their States Rights protected. Today the average Joe thinks that the Senators are supposed to work for them instead of working for the States. I doubt if they even teach what the Checks and balances built into the constitution really mean anymore.
Another proposal that is mostly promoted by the Progressive factions who also want an Article V convention for their purposes is to change the Second amendment to make it weak and useless. I propose in opposition to that we add a short and clear Amendment that states; "The Second Amendment provides for the public to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government shall not restrict that right in any way. All previous Federal Regulations on firearms are vacated, void, and rendered unenforceable. The Federal Government is hereby forbidden from creating any new firearms restrictions."
I firmly believe unless we unite in our causes and show a clear and simplified set of amendment proposals to the states we will fail in our attempt to get the critical amendments that will reset the Republic and restore the original checks and balances proposed, let alone passed and ratified.
The Tradesman
Are we headed to abject failure with our push for an Article V Amendment Convention? I am watching the arguments for an Article V Convention unfold, and it seems that like most of what the other things the conservative factions are trying to do, the many different proponents of an Article V convention are all over the map with their proposals.
The main thrust we have is to Repeal the 14th, 16th & 17th Amendments. I see that as our number one priority. However we can not afford to ignore the other factions who want a Balanced Budget Amendment because if we do we might just get enough poorly worded language for the Congress to use it as another reason to increase taxes to offset spending. We need to come up with a wording that forbids the Congress from spending beyond a fixed portion of the previous years collected revenues and blocks them from increasing revenues without the public voting on an increase. I hate to admit it but I think we must expand our agenda to consolidate the differing amendment proposals under a unified petition to all the State Legislatures. This will take some very educated statesmen who can wend all the major amendment proposals into a few short and clear proposals like our proposal for a 28th amendment, and complimentary to it, as a package to be sent to State Legislatures to order their delegates to propose, or to vote on as a pre ratified Amendment sent to Congress..
Another cherished amendment is the term limits for Congress, I have heard of three different plans, none of which would stop a career politician from just moving from one House to the other for the prescribed term limits. What we need is an amendment that gives a total combined amount of terms that could be spent in Congress regardless of which branch the politician decided to run for, and maybe adjust the length of term time for the Senate down to four years per term from the present six. I would opt for 12 years combined time for Congressional limits with the corresponding loss of or highly amended retirement packages comparable to what they would receive on average in civilian private industry jobs, and that could be tied to their private industry retirements as a percentage of that retirement package, and not an addition to it.
Many people are clamoring for a different means of taxation be it Flat Tax, Fixed Tax, or Fair Tax. This presents a dilemma for our agenda to get the 16th Amendment repealed because we will be expected to come up with a plan to generate revenues in a fair fashion. Maybe we could think outside the box on this one and come up with a really workable plan to properly apportion the taxation across the complete spectrum of Private Business, and even possibly return to the taxation we had before the 16th was pushed on us. I'm no economist so I would ask those who are to come up with viable plans to replace the income tax. If we don't have something that will work, we won't get the 16th repealed.
I have also seen a lot of negative reactions to our wanting to get the 14th Amendment Repealed. Unfortunately all of them are based on ignorance of what the 14th Amendment was supposed to do, and ignorance of what it in fact does to hurt us today. If we want to be successful with our stated repeal amendment we will need to start a massive educational program geared to reach the common man quickly and forcefully to explain just how insidious and destructive to the Republic this Amendment is.
The 17th Amendment educational process will be a different sell altogether. First we will have to educate the public about the reasons the Senators were supposed to represent the states and not the people or just be party line hacks. I don't believe they even teach the reasons that there are only two Senators per State and that having an equal number of Senators was part and parcel of the compromise that insured every State would have equal representation and have their States Rights protected. Today the average Joe thinks that the Senators are supposed to work for them instead of working for the States. I doubt if they even teach what the Checks and balances built into the constitution really mean anymore.
Another proposal that is mostly promoted by the Progressive factions who also want an Article V convention for their purposes is to change the Second amendment to make it weak and useless. I propose in opposition to that we add a short and clear Amendment that states; "The Second Amendment provides for the public to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government shall not restrict that right in any way. All previous Federal Regulations on firearms are vacated, void, and rendered unenforceable. The Federal Government is hereby forbidden from creating any new firearms restrictions."
I firmly believe unless we unite in our causes and show a clear and simplified set of amendment proposals to the states we will fail in our attempt to get the critical amendments that will reset the Republic and restore the original checks and balances proposed, let alone passed and ratified.
The Tradesman
The Fiery Debate Over Immigration
Well known Conservative firebrand, Phyliss Schlafly: “Republicans are ‘fools’ to back ‘any kind of amnesty’”...Read the latest now on TeaParty.org.
“ACTION: End the push for amnesty! Tell Congress "NO REWARDING PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW!" Obama and his liberal army don't care about fixing the problem. They care only about votes for Democrats. Stop Congress from allowing millions and millions of illegals to steal our jobs, drive down our wages, get free health care, overload our schools and our jails and get $9.4 trillion in benefits!”
Then there’s the sane and calm inside discussion among members of the all-volunteer Article V group www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com The site contains one of the best libraries on Liberty on the Internet.
Lock – the Article V site’s Founder - wrote in response: “Eagle Forum and many of their maybe "CONSERVATIVES" are looking more like the "PROGRESSIVES" filled with anger, hate and call all that disagree names. They are now labelers just like the far extreme left.”
.
David wrote: “Hi All, I still disagree. Until I read a viable argument and solution to the 10M plus illegals in the United States, I will not support any effort that opposes consideration of immigration reform. President Reagan supported amnesty, rightfully or wrongly. Are we better today than he was back then? The illegals are, in many cases, religious, family people, who want something better for their family. They are a victim of taking advantage of very loose United States immigration policy and hiring policy that allowed them entry, overstaying their visas, or avoiding deportation. To treat them as animals to herd home is repulsive.
We have politicians, white-collar workers, drug dealers, and every day citizens committing crimes much worse than coming here to better themselves. Sure, they broke the law and any policy must take that into consideration. I am not for amnesty; but I am in favor of humane treatment of those that are here otherwise obeying our laws. We must secure the border before any decision is made towards immigration reform.”
Then Gene wrote: “On this matter I stand on the side of David. I grew up to a large extent in Arizona. I have lived and worked with people who have immigrated, some legal some not so legal immigrants. So I tend to be a bit more understanding than most, besides that, I am married to a Spaniard and know some of the problems with ICE. It needs reform not deportation. But above all the borders need to be secured. Obama and his crew have had five plus years of opportunity. If he and those he assigns can't do that job, well that is the point. They can't do the job. Time to change directions.”
Jerry concluded: Are we seeing the beginning of some humane understanding of the immigration problem? I just wrote a piece on big government and business in health care. The lead sentence also applies here:
“One thing that will never change - human beings are each unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God - "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The USA has long been a magnet for immigrants – even those who just want to earn enough money to send back to improve their family’s lives at home. As bees drawn to nectar, our system awakens a normal human urge for accomplishment. The bee “knows” the nectar will require additional effort to convert to honey, and is therefore driven to work to the best of its ability to mine, transport and pass on the raw material.
Sadly, “progressive” forces have put out traps around the hive to usurp that urge to create to one of dependency and loss of drive for completion. Our mistake has been to accuse the illegal of wantonly coming here to steal what he can. As David pointed out, we don’t need an illegal to witness this phenomenon. The illegal knows where the flowers are. We just have to show him the way to the hive so he can complete his mission in life without being diverted to the temptations of the “progressive” siren call.
I cringe at the so-called “amnesty” that requires the payment of fines and going to the end of the line. All too many immigrants have paid a huge fine to coyotes and corrupt officials on both sides of the border. Coming here with huge debt or having to provide sexual favors for monsters is bad enough. Payment of fines can be transformed into community service designed to create a pride and love of their new country and her Constitution. The end of the line needn’t be so bad if the immigration process were realistic for those who have been trying to do it the right way.
My Catholic Church got itself buried in Social Justice when she should have worked toward Equal Justice within the framework of the Constitution that all too many have ignored. Justice still requires consequences, but “progressives” within the Church got the upper hand and pushed continually for more government funded goodies - at a tax and debt cost of $3-4 for every dollar of EBT Card issued. This grossly violated her own longstanding understanding of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity and absolute disdain for socialism that built her schools, universities and hospitals. Properly applied, these principles exactly match the Declaration of Independence, the moral, spiritual and philosophical basis of the Constitution.
“Bring me your tired and hungry"… ready to love your new nation and go to work!
Gerald V. Todd
March 9, 2014
“ACTION: End the push for amnesty! Tell Congress "NO REWARDING PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW!" Obama and his liberal army don't care about fixing the problem. They care only about votes for Democrats. Stop Congress from allowing millions and millions of illegals to steal our jobs, drive down our wages, get free health care, overload our schools and our jails and get $9.4 trillion in benefits!”
Then there’s the sane and calm inside discussion among members of the all-volunteer Article V group www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com The site contains one of the best libraries on Liberty on the Internet.
Lock – the Article V site’s Founder - wrote in response: “Eagle Forum and many of their maybe "CONSERVATIVES" are looking more like the "PROGRESSIVES" filled with anger, hate and call all that disagree names. They are now labelers just like the far extreme left.”
.
David wrote: “Hi All, I still disagree. Until I read a viable argument and solution to the 10M plus illegals in the United States, I will not support any effort that opposes consideration of immigration reform. President Reagan supported amnesty, rightfully or wrongly. Are we better today than he was back then? The illegals are, in many cases, religious, family people, who want something better for their family. They are a victim of taking advantage of very loose United States immigration policy and hiring policy that allowed them entry, overstaying their visas, or avoiding deportation. To treat them as animals to herd home is repulsive.
We have politicians, white-collar workers, drug dealers, and every day citizens committing crimes much worse than coming here to better themselves. Sure, they broke the law and any policy must take that into consideration. I am not for amnesty; but I am in favor of humane treatment of those that are here otherwise obeying our laws. We must secure the border before any decision is made towards immigration reform.”
Then Gene wrote: “On this matter I stand on the side of David. I grew up to a large extent in Arizona. I have lived and worked with people who have immigrated, some legal some not so legal immigrants. So I tend to be a bit more understanding than most, besides that, I am married to a Spaniard and know some of the problems with ICE. It needs reform not deportation. But above all the borders need to be secured. Obama and his crew have had five plus years of opportunity. If he and those he assigns can't do that job, well that is the point. They can't do the job. Time to change directions.”
Jerry concluded: Are we seeing the beginning of some humane understanding of the immigration problem? I just wrote a piece on big government and business in health care. The lead sentence also applies here:
“One thing that will never change - human beings are each unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God - "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The USA has long been a magnet for immigrants – even those who just want to earn enough money to send back to improve their family’s lives at home. As bees drawn to nectar, our system awakens a normal human urge for accomplishment. The bee “knows” the nectar will require additional effort to convert to honey, and is therefore driven to work to the best of its ability to mine, transport and pass on the raw material.
Sadly, “progressive” forces have put out traps around the hive to usurp that urge to create to one of dependency and loss of drive for completion. Our mistake has been to accuse the illegal of wantonly coming here to steal what he can. As David pointed out, we don’t need an illegal to witness this phenomenon. The illegal knows where the flowers are. We just have to show him the way to the hive so he can complete his mission in life without being diverted to the temptations of the “progressive” siren call.
I cringe at the so-called “amnesty” that requires the payment of fines and going to the end of the line. All too many immigrants have paid a huge fine to coyotes and corrupt officials on both sides of the border. Coming here with huge debt or having to provide sexual favors for monsters is bad enough. Payment of fines can be transformed into community service designed to create a pride and love of their new country and her Constitution. The end of the line needn’t be so bad if the immigration process were realistic for those who have been trying to do it the right way.
My Catholic Church got itself buried in Social Justice when she should have worked toward Equal Justice within the framework of the Constitution that all too many have ignored. Justice still requires consequences, but “progressives” within the Church got the upper hand and pushed continually for more government funded goodies - at a tax and debt cost of $3-4 for every dollar of EBT Card issued. This grossly violated her own longstanding understanding of the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity and absolute disdain for socialism that built her schools, universities and hospitals. Properly applied, these principles exactly match the Declaration of Independence, the moral, spiritual and philosophical basis of the Constitution.
“Bring me your tired and hungry"… ready to love your new nation and go to work!
Gerald V. Todd
March 9, 2014
R U READY FOR 2014--2016
Gee, this is scary!!!
We haven’t seen a change as drastic as it will be if and when Islam gets the upper hand in our Nation..............The only answer I have is vote out the current Party in 2016 – from top to bottom.
We haven’t seen a change as drastic as it will be if and when Islam gets the upper hand in our Nation..............The only answer I have is vote out the current Party in 2016 – from top to bottom.
Just the messenger!!! It's up you to decide how you feel about this.
NOW, WHO'S NEW IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
Arif Alikhan
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mohammed Elibiary
Homeland Security Adviser
Rashad Hussain
Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC)
Salam al-Marayati
Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director
Imam Mohamed Magid
Obama's Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America
Eboo Patel-
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships
This is flat-out scary!!!
The foxes are now officially living in the hen house...
Now ask me why I am very concerned!!!
Do you feel OK with this???
How can this happen, and when will we wake up???
We are quiet while our Country is being drastically changed!!!
If you're not CONCERNED, FORGET this.
Go to bed tonight...sleep well!
NOW, WHO'S NEW IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
Arif Alikhan
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mohammed Elibiary
Homeland Security Adviser
Rashad Hussain
Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC)
Salam al-Marayati
Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director
Imam Mohamed Magid
Obama's Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America
Eboo Patel-
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships
This is flat-out scary!!!
The foxes are now officially living in the hen house...
Now ask me why I am very concerned!!!
Do you feel OK with this???
How can this happen, and when will we wake up???
We are quiet while our Country is being drastically changed!!!
If you're not CONCERNED, FORGET this.
Go to bed tonight...sleep well!
The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution), implied powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers), powers granted by Acts of Congress, and enormous influence and soft power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power) from his position as leader of the United States.
Powers of the President: The President is the commander of the armed forces. He may also call for the opinion of his cabinet. He may grant reprieves (temporary delays in punishment} and pardons (complete forgiveness of a crime and its punishment). Treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other officers as allowed by Congress with approval of the Senate. The president can fill vacancies in offices without Senate approval if the Senate is out of session.
Duties of the President:
1. The speeches the president gives to Congress are called the State of the Union address.
2. The president can suggest that Congress pass certain legislation.
3. He can convene (call into official session) one or both houses. This has been done to deal with national emergencies.
4. If the House and Senate cannot agree on adjournment, the president can intervene.
5. The president receives ambassadors and public ministers of foreign powers.
The Process of Impeachment: The president can be impeached for aiding an enemy; giving or accepting money, gift, or favors illegally; serious crimes; or bad behavior.
Executive powers[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=1)]
Within the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)) itself, the President (if in office) has broad powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the federal government. The President can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)), which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. Also the powers of presidency is almost unlimited.
According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921), the president is also responsible for preparing the Budget of the United States, although the Congress must approve it.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#cite_note-1) The Office of Management and Budget assists the President with the preparation of the budget. In the past (but no longer), the President was able to impound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds) funds as he saw fit. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974) was passed in response to large scale exercise of the power by President Nixon. This act also created theCongressional Budget Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.
As Commander in Chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief) of the armed forces of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces), the president may also call into federal service the state units of the National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard). In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president even broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these are not powers granted by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) to the president. During the Vietnam War in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act)to severely limit the ability of the President to conduct warfare without Congressional approval. Congress has the power to declare the war (Article 1, sec 8), but if the president needs to send the troops to other countries for hostile reasons, he will need congressional confirmation within 48 hours. For any time beyond 60 days, further congressional approval will be required.
So which is which - the Constitutional limits of Article II or the Rules and regulations powers? His Rules and Regulations must be provided for in the Statue or he must go to Congress.
------------
Powers of the President: The President is the commander of the armed forces. He may also call for the opinion of his cabinet. He may grant reprieves (temporary delays in punishment} and pardons (complete forgiveness of a crime and its punishment). Treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other officers as allowed by Congress with approval of the Senate. The president can fill vacancies in offices without Senate approval if the Senate is out of session.
Duties of the President:
1. The speeches the president gives to Congress are called the State of the Union address.
2. The president can suggest that Congress pass certain legislation.
3. He can convene (call into official session) one or both houses. This has been done to deal with national emergencies.
4. If the House and Senate cannot agree on adjournment, the president can intervene.
5. The president receives ambassadors and public ministers of foreign powers.
The Process of Impeachment: The president can be impeached for aiding an enemy; giving or accepting money, gift, or favors illegally; serious crimes; or bad behavior.
Executive powers[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=1)]
Within the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)) itself, the President (if in office) has broad powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the federal government. The President can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)), which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. Also the powers of presidency is almost unlimited.
According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921), the president is also responsible for preparing the Budget of the United States, although the Congress must approve it.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#cite_note-1) The Office of Management and Budget assists the President with the preparation of the budget. In the past (but no longer), the President was able to impound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds) funds as he saw fit. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974) was passed in response to large scale exercise of the power by President Nixon. This act also created theCongressional Budget Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.
As Commander in Chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief) of the armed forces of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces), the president may also call into federal service the state units of the National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard). In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president even broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these are not powers granted by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) to the president. During the Vietnam War in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act)to severely limit the ability of the President to conduct warfare without Congressional approval. Congress has the power to declare the war (Article 1, sec 8), but if the president needs to send the troops to other countries for hostile reasons, he will need congressional confirmation within 48 hours. For any time beyond 60 days, further congressional approval will be required.
So which is which - the Constitutional limits of Article II or the Rules and regulations powers? His Rules and Regulations must be provided for in the Statue or he must go to Congress.
------------
Let's Play Poker
A relatively young, beautiful, well educated person of Indian Sub-Continent heritage, has recently been elected to the city council of Seattle, Washington. Most would hail the entry of a new, well educated, after all she is a current economics professor at a local University, as great news. So, why did such an event spark such a lively conversation among the Article V Project to Restore Liberty group. The fact is, she is an avowed and proclaimed Socialist, elected independent of any major party involvement, as a matter of fact, she shunned involvement of any major party or corporation. So, again, why the big debate.
Our group came across this interesting, thought provoking link: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/young-americans--socialism-there-is-a-shifting-of-the-tide/5294f956fe34441edd0000cf
Kashama Sawant was interviewed on the Huffington Post site Huffpost Live. The first response from our group was, "We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo. The following response was a little more direct, "This from a woman whose lineage traces back to a country where many women are abused, raped, held in slave bondage, not even in some areas allowed to drive. She is trained as an economics professor, yet failed to study the system she is espousing. Does she not understand, the system of socialism has failed in every country where it has been attempted.... even China". Personally as the writer of the article, I am not sure I agree socialism has completely failed, but in my humble opinion, it has often led to economic calamity. This has been demonstrated to be in person. Living as I have in Europe for many years, it is the attempt to combine socialist ideals with capitalism which has brought the near complete collapse of the EU economy.
Another of the group contributed the next viewpoint, "Such people, with such ideas, always get the press with their own dumb questions, and uniformed interest? Ratings, duplicity, or true ignorance, which is it, or perhaps is it all of the above?"
As a writer, I could no longer resist. I began my comments with a reminder to one of our group, "I had written before, we need to appeal to the self-interests of State Legislators and the potential money that could be attracted their way from lobbyists, if the control is to be shifted from the center in D.C. To the States where it belongs". What I wanted to show here was, we need to be in the game. That a socialist was being interviewed by a leftist media program was not news. In fact, was a leftist leaning media outlet really considered news, or propaganda, or social interest. Perhaps the information will be picked up by what is today considered news outlets, but that would not be unexpected either, that this new politician will get some mileage out of the interview, probably so and so what?
What I suggest is what we, as a group really need to work on, ways to counter them and vanquish them at their own game. What I suggested earlier, was to bring money into the game, if not money then influence of the type today only money can buy. Is it a game? I have heard politics many times referred to as "A Game". What the politicians, by and large, are doing today, I would not call honest representation, so yes, it probably is a game. It is our fondest hope to change that, to a more representative style of Government closely akin to what the framers had in mind, with that I agree. For now, what passes as politics, believe me is a game, a game under which we, not usually them, live under the consquences of the results of their moves. For now, it is a game in which it is in our self interest to be sure we sit in on.
Unless and until we are willing to play, are we even in the game, I wonder? I don't know how many of the readers of this article are, or have been poker players. At many tables, there are sit down limits, called buy in's. On other tables, there are other limits, like maximum bets, or maximum raise or a no limit, or in some off book illegal games you can play only what is on the table. The point is, you don't sit in on a game you are not willing to play, or don't know the rules up front.
I look at this like an elimination tournament. In the sort of tournament I would like to choose, when we eliminate a player, they are out, until we are down to the final two players. If the final two players, by agreement, decide to change the rules, so be it. They are the ones playing and have earned the right to their seat at the table. They have earned it by convincing others of their plan, of their approach, by winning against what the others have submitted. They have held the most winning hands under the general rules.
In my view, this is in a way, what happened at the original and ONLY convention of States. Many representatives of their individual States, all sovereign countries in their own right, came together to form a Union to serve their general interests. They formed the Federal Government, not the other way around. I have learned over time, many came with many different ideas. Ideas that were discussed and evaluated and accepted or rejected. Each idea was truely heard and none were to be laughed at. After all these were representatives, sent by thirteen Soveriegn Countries.
My poker tournament description is not unlike what they did. I see the final table as a convention of states, an Article V convention. Once we get there, we still have to knock out most of the others who made it through the elimination rounds, face it there will be some like her there. By her, I mean the young socialist that began this article. It is my fervent hope and prayer, the good people of any State sending representatives to such a freedom convention would not elect such a person, but if they did by their own free will, then so be it. I would like us as a group to have defeated her ideas before they got that far. Is it possible to do, yes. It is likely to defeat them all, not so sure about that. There are a lot of charming people, disguising truly terrible motives out there.
For the sake of this article, let's say our amendment, the 28th amendment, which repeals the fourteenth, the sixteenth and the seventeenth amendments, in a simple twenty word, easy to understand way, is the one which arises as the most favored option. Once that is finally done, and our amendment is accepted as the one to be put forth for ratification, we still will not have won. We will have to beat them at their own game again, during the ratification process. I think that may even be a tougher phase than we are in now. Remember, it is Thirty Four to submit, Thirty Eight to ratify.
As the situation stands at the present time, we have an advantage of sorts. We are seen in different ways by people with differing perspectives, perhaps by some, we are dismissed as either a fringe cause, not really a serious concern. Or, that we are too far out there on the political fringe to be seen as a serious threat to the status quo. Or, we are reactionary, and then we are dealt the hand with the race card in this imaginary poker game we are playing. When a group such as we have formed, because of those other groups we are aligned with becomes a prominent focus, what will be said? Probably first, why are they doing this, or can you imagine another reason, I can name several but, you decide on your own the differing reasons they will use. After all, any who group seriously questions the current executive, are to be founded to have that motive, the current President is black, so there could be no other reason, now could there? In poker, I would call that bet. In effect, I would have the challenger prove that as my motive. They should not be allowed to just "Say it", they have to prove it. Since, the burden is on them, it could make their life difficult. It is like saying to a bully, "Prove you can do what you say you can do", when they can't they lose every time. But, you must be willing to call their bluff.
When they come after us and they will, as they have no other choice. We must remember, and a very great lady said it better than I.
" I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." ~ Margaret Thatcher
I cannot tell you for sure, what will happen. I do predict that, WHEN not IF, we successfully thread the VERY small eye of the needle that we need to get through to have our 28th submitted for ratification....many will be thinking....WE ARE DANGEROUS. We will get news coverage. But, I am still not sure we will like most of it. We will have become a threat to the accepted american (small a on purpose) way of life.
I am a God fearing man. Right now, I think we are in the phase of this effort, where we must do more. A famous often used biblical quote works well here, "God helps those who help themselves". So we will continue to build our site, align with others who share our goal of the restoration of liberty. Work the conversations, discussions; debate others to seek to bring our message to the forefront...indeed work harder to do just that.
Once that LARGE hurdle is cleared, then I really think we will be in the, "God help and preserve us" mode. That will mean we are succeeding, they will be truly worried we might take their play house away. For if not, we will surely must be in defence of liberty quickly, The alternative, as espoused by some of the radicals will find us in the "Your will be done, not my will be done". Let us pray, we can prevail before all that. For if not, if He cannot find among us, enough worthy to preserve, well we know the end of that parable.
That concludes the amatuer sermon for today. Perhaps I should say 'Sorry for the rant'. You know, I don't remember who said it, but there is a saying in Hollywood, "Politics is acting for ugly people". The thing about the similarity is, in both lines of work, if you ain't getting noticed, you ain't getting work....or results, both are the same thing.
A relatively young, beautiful, well educated person of Indian Sub-Continent heritage, has recently been elected to the city council of Seattle, Washington. Most would hail the entry of a new, well educated, after all she is a current economics professor at a local University, as great news. So, why did such an event spark such a lively conversation among the Article V Project to Restore Liberty group. The fact is, she is an avowed and proclaimed Socialist, elected independent of any major party involvement, as a matter of fact, she shunned involvement of any major party or corporation. So, again, why the big debate.
Our group came across this interesting, thought provoking link: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/young-americans--socialism-there-is-a-shifting-of-the-tide/5294f956fe34441edd0000cf
Kashama Sawant was interviewed on the Huffington Post site Huffpost Live. The first response from our group was, "We have seen the enemy and he is us", Pogo. The following response was a little more direct, "This from a woman whose lineage traces back to a country where many women are abused, raped, held in slave bondage, not even in some areas allowed to drive. She is trained as an economics professor, yet failed to study the system she is espousing. Does she not understand, the system of socialism has failed in every country where it has been attempted.... even China". Personally as the writer of the article, I am not sure I agree socialism has completely failed, but in my humble opinion, it has often led to economic calamity. This has been demonstrated to be in person. Living as I have in Europe for many years, it is the attempt to combine socialist ideals with capitalism which has brought the near complete collapse of the EU economy.
Another of the group contributed the next viewpoint, "Such people, with such ideas, always get the press with their own dumb questions, and uniformed interest? Ratings, duplicity, or true ignorance, which is it, or perhaps is it all of the above?"
As a writer, I could no longer resist. I began my comments with a reminder to one of our group, "I had written before, we need to appeal to the self-interests of State Legislators and the potential money that could be attracted their way from lobbyists, if the control is to be shifted from the center in D.C. To the States where it belongs". What I wanted to show here was, we need to be in the game. That a socialist was being interviewed by a leftist media program was not news. In fact, was a leftist leaning media outlet really considered news, or propaganda, or social interest. Perhaps the information will be picked up by what is today considered news outlets, but that would not be unexpected either, that this new politician will get some mileage out of the interview, probably so and so what?
What I suggest is what we, as a group really need to work on, ways to counter them and vanquish them at their own game. What I suggested earlier, was to bring money into the game, if not money then influence of the type today only money can buy. Is it a game? I have heard politics many times referred to as "A Game". What the politicians, by and large, are doing today, I would not call honest representation, so yes, it probably is a game. It is our fondest hope to change that, to a more representative style of Government closely akin to what the framers had in mind, with that I agree. For now, what passes as politics, believe me is a game, a game under which we, not usually them, live under the consquences of the results of their moves. For now, it is a game in which it is in our self interest to be sure we sit in on.
Unless and until we are willing to play, are we even in the game, I wonder? I don't know how many of the readers of this article are, or have been poker players. At many tables, there are sit down limits, called buy in's. On other tables, there are other limits, like maximum bets, or maximum raise or a no limit, or in some off book illegal games you can play only what is on the table. The point is, you don't sit in on a game you are not willing to play, or don't know the rules up front.
I look at this like an elimination tournament. In the sort of tournament I would like to choose, when we eliminate a player, they are out, until we are down to the final two players. If the final two players, by agreement, decide to change the rules, so be it. They are the ones playing and have earned the right to their seat at the table. They have earned it by convincing others of their plan, of their approach, by winning against what the others have submitted. They have held the most winning hands under the general rules.
In my view, this is in a way, what happened at the original and ONLY convention of States. Many representatives of their individual States, all sovereign countries in their own right, came together to form a Union to serve their general interests. They formed the Federal Government, not the other way around. I have learned over time, many came with many different ideas. Ideas that were discussed and evaluated and accepted or rejected. Each idea was truely heard and none were to be laughed at. After all these were representatives, sent by thirteen Soveriegn Countries.
My poker tournament description is not unlike what they did. I see the final table as a convention of states, an Article V convention. Once we get there, we still have to knock out most of the others who made it through the elimination rounds, face it there will be some like her there. By her, I mean the young socialist that began this article. It is my fervent hope and prayer, the good people of any State sending representatives to such a freedom convention would not elect such a person, but if they did by their own free will, then so be it. I would like us as a group to have defeated her ideas before they got that far. Is it possible to do, yes. It is likely to defeat them all, not so sure about that. There are a lot of charming people, disguising truly terrible motives out there.
For the sake of this article, let's say our amendment, the 28th amendment, which repeals the fourteenth, the sixteenth and the seventeenth amendments, in a simple twenty word, easy to understand way, is the one which arises as the most favored option. Once that is finally done, and our amendment is accepted as the one to be put forth for ratification, we still will not have won. We will have to beat them at their own game again, during the ratification process. I think that may even be a tougher phase than we are in now. Remember, it is Thirty Four to submit, Thirty Eight to ratify.
As the situation stands at the present time, we have an advantage of sorts. We are seen in different ways by people with differing perspectives, perhaps by some, we are dismissed as either a fringe cause, not really a serious concern. Or, that we are too far out there on the political fringe to be seen as a serious threat to the status quo. Or, we are reactionary, and then we are dealt the hand with the race card in this imaginary poker game we are playing. When a group such as we have formed, because of those other groups we are aligned with becomes a prominent focus, what will be said? Probably first, why are they doing this, or can you imagine another reason, I can name several but, you decide on your own the differing reasons they will use. After all, any who group seriously questions the current executive, are to be founded to have that motive, the current President is black, so there could be no other reason, now could there? In poker, I would call that bet. In effect, I would have the challenger prove that as my motive. They should not be allowed to just "Say it", they have to prove it. Since, the burden is on them, it could make their life difficult. It is like saying to a bully, "Prove you can do what you say you can do", when they can't they lose every time. But, you must be willing to call their bluff.
When they come after us and they will, as they have no other choice. We must remember, and a very great lady said it better than I.
" I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." ~ Margaret Thatcher
I cannot tell you for sure, what will happen. I do predict that, WHEN not IF, we successfully thread the VERY small eye of the needle that we need to get through to have our 28th submitted for ratification....many will be thinking....WE ARE DANGEROUS. We will get news coverage. But, I am still not sure we will like most of it. We will have become a threat to the accepted american (small a on purpose) way of life.
I am a God fearing man. Right now, I think we are in the phase of this effort, where we must do more. A famous often used biblical quote works well here, "God helps those who help themselves". So we will continue to build our site, align with others who share our goal of the restoration of liberty. Work the conversations, discussions; debate others to seek to bring our message to the forefront...indeed work harder to do just that.
Once that LARGE hurdle is cleared, then I really think we will be in the, "God help and preserve us" mode. That will mean we are succeeding, they will be truly worried we might take their play house away. For if not, we will surely must be in defence of liberty quickly, The alternative, as espoused by some of the radicals will find us in the "Your will be done, not my will be done". Let us pray, we can prevail before all that. For if not, if He cannot find among us, enough worthy to preserve, well we know the end of that parable.
That concludes the amatuer sermon for today. Perhaps I should say 'Sorry for the rant'. You know, I don't remember who said it, but there is a saying in Hollywood, "Politics is acting for ugly people". The thing about the similarity is, in both lines of work, if you ain't getting noticed, you ain't getting work....or results, both are the same thing.
How long until the takeover?
34 more Air Force Officers suspended by Obama today, and they were the ones in control of our Nuclear Missiles. Allegedly it was for cheating on proficiency tests and two for alleged drug use. Looks like the Dictator has severely crippled our defense system response in case of an attack. So far the Obama Administration has removed and replaced about 200 trained officers in the most critical positions in our Military and replaced them with his hand picked personnel. I wonder if there is a coup coming from this Administration to negate Congress and the Courts that are not totally loyal to him? Again Obama has struck a massive body blow to our Regular Military Organization to what only can be a concerted effort to demoralize, disrupt the chain of command, create chaos out of order, place his people in positions of absolute power in the military, fractionalize and weaken the military to the point of a third world country.I posted this list before, but in light of today's disclosure I feel compelled to post it again;Many of these below have spotless records, 25 and up years service, many medals and honors such as Brig. Gen Bryan W. Wampler and Command Sgt. Major Don B. Jordan.
Commanding Generals fired:
General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)
Commanding Admirals fired:
Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)
Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)
Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)
Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)
Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012)
Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012)
Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012)
Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012)
Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013)
Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy’s medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013)
Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013)
Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort’s medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Jack O’Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013)
Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)
157 [ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN] Air Force majors forced into early terminations, no retirement or benefits.
All 157 had been twice passed over for promotion and were within six years of retirement.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120103/NEWS/201030335/
Addendum to post: Regular Army vs civilian Army.
Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140116/CAREERS02/301160018/7-000-face-Quality-Force-Review-Board
Those being considered are enlisted Airmen up to the rank of Senior Master Sergeant. Air force chief of Staff, General Mark Welsh said the service could lose up to 25,000 over the next five years. the airmen being considered have been asked to find out if they are eligible for separation, retirement, early retirement, to avoid meeting the Board. It was also said that voluntary separation pay would not be offered to airmen meeting the board. The board is scheduled to meet May 5-16th and the airmen who have decided to meet with it will be notified by the end of June if they will be retained or forced out.
Too many to list.
These continued actions tend to give new life to the Civilian Army that Obama established under the ACA/Obamacare Act. Strange that a healthcare act can establish and fund a private army sworn not to the constitution but instead to the sitting President isn't it?
Lets revisit the previously posted information on the ACA/Obamacare Act and get a better look at what may be happening;
Details of the civilian army were hidden in the voluminous Obamacare bill, which our Congressmen and Senators voted on but did not read. I will put my comments in { } as I comment on the information in; http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29688
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT–
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
{{ Who gets to Declare a National emergency you might ask, Why Obama of course}{
(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.
{ This allows Obama to push anyone he wants into the corps even if they do not have the scholastic background to qualify for being a commissioned officer. but the real kicker here is the reference to Regular Corps Officers. }
(3) APPOINTMENT.– Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. N
{Obama alone can appoint the officers he wants to the Ready Reserve without having to go to Congress for approval of his picks, and then in a future "National Emergency" can just place them in with the Regular Corps. Could the "Emergency be the fact that so many 'Regular Corps Officers of the line have been removed from duty by Obama?}
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
{Didn't Obama have his loyal storm troopers trained and ready by the time the ACA/Obamacare Act was enacted, or did this passage allude to an Ex Post Facto law enactment? Note it even states that "(as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)" That is a strange passage unless you take into account Obama's actions to strip the military branches of experianced Officers who are loyal to the Constitution instead of personally loyal to Obama.}
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
{Unable as yet to find out if these are the Officers Obama used to replace the ones he fired. this passage allows Obama to by-pass Congress and appoint officers into the Regular corps from the Ready Reserve which is allegedly used basically for medical emergencies but with this section Obama can and has placed officers personally loyal to him into key spots to effectively neutralize the regular military while having a reserve force that can take over.}
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
{Lets look at the highlighted areas. Under (1) Purpose you can see where there was the inclusion of "Emergency Response Missions", that can be interpreted as strictly medical and disaster emergencies until you read the qualifiers under sections (b) and (c).
Under (b) the reserve can be called up to active duty by whoever declares the Emergency.
Under (c) the Reserve can be used to back fill critical positions left Vacant. Remember these Ready Reserve swear allegiance to the President and not to the Constitution and are not subject to Congressional approval like the regular military officers are. Neat way for Obama to again make an end run around Congress isn't it? Oh yeah, they are hidden in plain sight under the guise of the Surgeon General's Office}
Further more it is now LAW and tied to Obamacare; Source; http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29688
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312: SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS. Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows: SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS. (a) ESTABLISHMENT (1) IN GENERAL. Here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. (2) REQUIREMENT. All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended. (3) APPOINTMENT. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (4) ACTIVE DUTY. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training. (5) WARRANT OFFICERS. Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service. (b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. [Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.] (c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed services reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions. (2) USES. The Ready Reserve Corps shall (A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps; (B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel; (C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and (D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services. (d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army sworn to Obama or the future sitting President, and they could be used as Obama storm troopers to take over critical positions in the Regular Military that Obama created by Fiat?
Commanding Generals fired:
General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)
Commanding Admirals fired:
Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)
Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)
Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)
Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)
Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012)
Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012)
Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012)
Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012)
Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013)
Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy’s medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013)
Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013)
Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort’s medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Jack O’Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013)
Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)
157 [ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN] Air Force majors forced into early terminations, no retirement or benefits.
All 157 had been twice passed over for promotion and were within six years of retirement.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120103/NEWS/201030335/
Addendum to post: Regular Army vs civilian Army.
Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140116/CAREERS02/301160018/7-000-face-Quality-Force-Review-Board
Those being considered are enlisted Airmen up to the rank of Senior Master Sergeant. Air force chief of Staff, General Mark Welsh said the service could lose up to 25,000 over the next five years. the airmen being considered have been asked to find out if they are eligible for separation, retirement, early retirement, to avoid meeting the Board. It was also said that voluntary separation pay would not be offered to airmen meeting the board. The board is scheduled to meet May 5-16th and the airmen who have decided to meet with it will be notified by the end of June if they will be retained or forced out.
Too many to list.
These continued actions tend to give new life to the Civilian Army that Obama established under the ACA/Obamacare Act. Strange that a healthcare act can establish and fund a private army sworn not to the constitution but instead to the sitting President isn't it?
Lets revisit the previously posted information on the ACA/Obamacare Act and get a better look at what may be happening;
Details of the civilian army were hidden in the voluminous Obamacare bill, which our Congressmen and Senators voted on but did not read. I will put my comments in { } as I comment on the information in; http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29688
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT–
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
{{ Who gets to Declare a National emergency you might ask, Why Obama of course}{
(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.
{ This allows Obama to push anyone he wants into the corps even if they do not have the scholastic background to qualify for being a commissioned officer. but the real kicker here is the reference to Regular Corps Officers. }
(3) APPOINTMENT.– Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. N
{Obama alone can appoint the officers he wants to the Ready Reserve without having to go to Congress for approval of his picks, and then in a future "National Emergency" can just place them in with the Regular Corps. Could the "Emergency be the fact that so many 'Regular Corps Officers of the line have been removed from duty by Obama?}
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
{Didn't Obama have his loyal storm troopers trained and ready by the time the ACA/Obamacare Act was enacted, or did this passage allude to an Ex Post Facto law enactment? Note it even states that "(as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)" That is a strange passage unless you take into account Obama's actions to strip the military branches of experianced Officers who are loyal to the Constitution instead of personally loyal to Obama.}
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
{Unable as yet to find out if these are the Officers Obama used to replace the ones he fired. this passage allows Obama to by-pass Congress and appoint officers into the Regular corps from the Ready Reserve which is allegedly used basically for medical emergencies but with this section Obama can and has placed officers personally loyal to him into key spots to effectively neutralize the regular military while having a reserve force that can take over.}
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
{Lets look at the highlighted areas. Under (1) Purpose you can see where there was the inclusion of "Emergency Response Missions", that can be interpreted as strictly medical and disaster emergencies until you read the qualifiers under sections (b) and (c).
Under (b) the reserve can be called up to active duty by whoever declares the Emergency.
Under (c) the Reserve can be used to back fill critical positions left Vacant. Remember these Ready Reserve swear allegiance to the President and not to the Constitution and are not subject to Congressional approval like the regular military officers are. Neat way for Obama to again make an end run around Congress isn't it? Oh yeah, they are hidden in plain sight under the guise of the Surgeon General's Office}
Further more it is now LAW and tied to Obamacare; Source; http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29688
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312: SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS. Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows: SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS. (a) ESTABLISHMENT (1) IN GENERAL. Here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. (2) REQUIREMENT. All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended. (3) APPOINTMENT. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (4) ACTIVE DUTY. Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training. (5) WARRANT OFFICERS. Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service. (b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. [Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.] (c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed services reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions. (2) USES. The Ready Reserve Corps shall (A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps; (B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel; (C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and (D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services. (d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army sworn to Obama or the future sitting President, and they could be used as Obama storm troopers to take over critical positions in the Regular Military that Obama created by Fiat?
America Urgently Needs State-Proposed Article V Constitutional Amendments
The Framers anticipated that the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended from time to time, what James Madison referred to as “to originate the amendment of errors.” They also recognized that the States would need the authority to restrain a power-hungry federal government and solve problems that Washington could not or would not address. For example, the federal government has been unwilling to stop their historic deficit spending, which is more than double their revenues. Our ballooning $14 Trillion national debt and borrowing is increasing by $4 Billion per day, or $13,200 per taxpayer per year! See our latest nation's debt totals at the U.S. Debt Clock.
Article V provides both Congress and the States with the exact same authority: to ‘propose’ new amendments. This limited authority to propose amendments should not be confused with a ‘Constitutional Convention,’ of which no mention, process or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. There are those who have unfounded fears and oppose the legitimate use of Article V authority by the States. But is Congress somehow more trustworthy for proposing amendments than our State legislatures? By limiting its scope, a runaway convention is very unlikely and avoidable. Additionally, the ratification process and our system of checks and balances protect the Constitution from abuse by the amendment process.
The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth-century England. Today's use of Article V authority by the States is endorsed by such Constitutional scholars as Professor Rob Natelson [http://constitution.i2i.org/about/](Independence Institute), Nick Dranias [http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/expert/109] (Goldwater Institute), Professor Randy Barnett [http://www.randybarnett.com] ](Georgetown University Law Center) and Russell L. Caplan (author of Constitutional Brinksmanship [http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Brinksmanship-Amending-Constit...].) Even our Founders encouraged Article V use by the States:
James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the States, that should be used to correct ‘errors’ in our government and Constitution “It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how State legislatures should be ‘trusted’ to hold back an out-of-control central government “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
John Dickinson, in the “Fabius” [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show...] essays, warned the States about negative consequences if they ‘did not’ use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”
Throughout our nation's history, the States have never exercised their Article V authority to meet in a convention for proposing and approving an amendment. Only Congress has proposed and forwarded amendments to the States for ratification. But other than the repeal of Prohibition,[http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html]
Congress has not submitted an amendment to curb its own expanding power and authority since 1789 when it sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification.Congress will not reform itself. It is up to the States and We the People to repair our out-of-control government and to restore our Constitutional Republic.
Mangus Colorado
Article V provides both Congress and the States with the exact same authority: to ‘propose’ new amendments. This limited authority to propose amendments should not be confused with a ‘Constitutional Convention,’ of which no mention, process or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. There are those who have unfounded fears and oppose the legitimate use of Article V authority by the States. But is Congress somehow more trustworthy for proposing amendments than our State legislatures? By limiting its scope, a runaway convention is very unlikely and avoidable. Additionally, the ratification process and our system of checks and balances protect the Constitution from abuse by the amendment process.
The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth-century England. Today's use of Article V authority by the States is endorsed by such Constitutional scholars as Professor Rob Natelson [http://constitution.i2i.org/about/](Independence Institute), Nick Dranias [http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/expert/109] (Goldwater Institute), Professor Randy Barnett [http://www.randybarnett.com] ](Georgetown University Law Center) and Russell L. Caplan (author of Constitutional Brinksmanship [http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Brinksmanship-Amending-Constit...].) Even our Founders encouraged Article V use by the States:
James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the States, that should be used to correct ‘errors’ in our government and Constitution “It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.”
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how State legislatures should be ‘trusted’ to hold back an out-of-control central government “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
John Dickinson, in the “Fabius” [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show...] essays, warned the States about negative consequences if they ‘did not’ use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”
Throughout our nation's history, the States have never exercised their Article V authority to meet in a convention for proposing and approving an amendment. Only Congress has proposed and forwarded amendments to the States for ratification. But other than the repeal of Prohibition,[http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html]
Congress has not submitted an amendment to curb its own expanding power and authority since 1789 when it sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification.Congress will not reform itself. It is up to the States and We the People to repair our out-of-control government and to restore our Constitutional Republic.
Mangus Colorado
